Says it all really :)

If you're going to play in the 3e era, go with 3.5.

There's really no reason to use 3.0 over 3.5.

The BIGGEST change I found in 3.5, was that it was designed to play more similarly to the D&D miniature game (4th edition took this to the umpteenth degree). Units of measurement are measured in Squares (5'x5'), rather then feet. Gnomes favored class has changed to bard, rangers are overhauled, there are more rules for different timing of effects (swift actions for instance).

All in All, D&D has been changing over the years to be played as a Board Game, rather then a true Roleplaying Game. It's difficult to play 3.5 without a board, whereas I could get away with a "sitting around the room playing D&D" with earlier versions of the game.

If you see that as a bastardization of the game, go back to D&D, AD&D, or AD&D 2e, everything that WoTC have done to the game will seem stupid to you. I personally prefer 3.5 the best, although I don't get a chance to play very often. The books are just better to read I find, which is what I mainly do with my D&D.

Alex_P:
2nd Edition didn't require any particular brilliance or talent to play. -- Alex

Uh... only a particularly brilliant and talented person would think that. To put it another way: Try playing an RPG like D&D 2nd Ed with people who are genuinely of average intelligence. It doesn't work very well. Realize then that 50% of the population is less intelligent than that. Tabletop RPGs will always be niche for that reason.

Perhaps an average player can skate by if the rules are simple enough, but any good GM/DM is almost certainly coming from the "gifted" program of his high school. If he's not, it's because the system screwed up. Improvisational acting + real-time storytelling + complex rules management? It's harder than law school.

And Gary Gygax singlehandedly drove my 5th-grade vocabulary into the 12th grade level, though to be fair that's 1E.

Real men use Home-brewed 2Ed. I personally feel the base of 2nd with some of the bits of 3rd like feats and prestige classes is best. Hell, if you're the DM, just make it up as you go along.

Archon:
Uh... only a particularly brilliant and talented person would think that. To put it another way: Try playing an RPG like D&D 2nd Ed with people who are genuinely of average intelligence. It doesn't work very well. Realize then that 50% of the population is less intelligent than that. Tabletop RPGs will always be niche for that reason.

Perhaps an average player can skate by if the rules are simple enough, but any good GM/DM is almost certainly coming from the "gifted" program of his high school. If he's not, it's because the system screwed up. Improvisational acting + real-time storytelling + complex rules management? It's harder than law school.

And Gary Gygax singlehandedly drove my 5th-grade vocabulary into the 12th grade level, though to be fair that's 1E.

I was speaking more in terms of 2nd Edition compared to other games rather than all RPGs in general, but, in the interest of saying something interesting, I'll press the more general claim as well.

So, first, here's why AD&D 2nd Edition isn't special as far as RPGs go.

The game has lots of bits but offers fairly few built-in choices. Sure, the game had a chart of how big of a tunnel a kobold could make in an hour, but the game mechanics seldom created useful, interesting choices. Consider how bland by-the-book combat was in AD&D, for example -- spellcasters are perhaps the exception here, but that's only if your wizard has found a lot of spells or if your cleric isn't wasting most of his slots on healing. No, most of the real complexity came from going above and beyond what the rules actually covered. Some players speak very highly of the rules improvisation in their AD&D games, but deciding how to handle a chase scene or checks for falling off a bridge or your own sex mini-game (hey, some people go far enough to try to publish theirs) pales in comparison to the basic fiction-building legwork you have to do in any RPG.

...

I also think that RPGs in general aren't all that special, either. (Correction: they are very interesting and special as games go, but I don't think they require amazing talent to play.)

My contention is that most RPG players are already pretty average where it counts. They may be identified as the "smart kids" or educated adults, but their particular talents and areas of expertise likely have very little in common with what participants actually do during a session of play. That's why you don't see them doing much improv or acting or writing.

When you say "Try playing an RPG like D&D 2nd Ed with people who are genuinely of average intelligence. It doesn't work very well," you're describing a situation that already happens all the time. Most pen-and-paper roleplaying doesn't work very well. Both the formal rules (from the rulebook or explicit "house rules") and more informal play procedures (which the players synthesize from the game books, their individual experiences, and wider gaming culture) tend to be burdened with a bunch of bad ideas.

Do you like listening to other people describe their RPG sessions? Usually, I don't. With very few exceptions, the stories people describe are pretty mundane, even boring. They're fun for the participants in the moment but come off as stilted and exceedingly predictable in the retelling. In a game like D&D, you've also got game-mechanical structures that encourage formulaic style.

Hell, let me go further than that: part of the joy of pen-and-paper roleplaying is that your stuff only has to be good enough for right now. You don't have to be a good writer or a good game designer or a halfway decent actor. You whole group can be quite average when it comes to all that stuff and you can still skate by and have fun -- and, yes, I sincerely think that's what most people are doing right now.

-- Alex

Lord Spike:
I CAST FLARE!!!!

I agree

I never really understood the tabletop D&D... Now, Planescape Torment/Baldur's Gate/Neverwinter Nights etc. has it all graphically laid out for you and the story is already there. How do Dungeon Masters do it, though? Put people in their own "world" .. "You move to the town, but.. uh.. lemme think.. on your way there you are attacked by.. uh.. zombies! And a ghoul! You must defend yourselves." .. And then proceed to roll the dice?

I really don't know. I guess you must have a lot of imagination for it. O.o

mixing 2 and 3 is a BAD idea. you get 5. 5 hasnt been tested yet, like, at all.

ok that was an appeal to your inner pseudointellectual moron to stall you. seriously though, 3.5 has all the stuff you need, its all laid out well, less than 3.0 (but still a fair amount of) digging around in different sourcebooks for stuff and for the love of god dont try to mix second edition in. it doesnt mesh anywhere NEAR as well theyre totally different, and all the IDEAS in second are still somewhere in 3.5, just not nessicarily default. and light armor isnt totally useless anymore! also, remember, your the DM. reccomended means just that; its a reccomendation, just remember to change other aspects of the game accordingly.