I voted 1st ed. but I must admit v3.5 is growing on me

3.0+ is for WIMPS!  Man.. can a character even DIE in 3.0?  All they need is Spandex outfits and they are freakin' super heros!

Encounter Level? WIMPS!

Feats!?  WIMPS!

True gaming skill is being able to describe in detail the ways of medieval combat maneuvers and out grognarding your DM.  Taking 20 is for the illiterates who can't argue their way out of a Latin Translation Debate or who have never actually taken the trouble to learn the proper dressing order for field plate!

1.0 FOREVER!  And I tip my hat to those old guard who still play ORIGINAL D&D. (9th level and you get followers and a tower... sweeet)

-Jon

I'd have to say 3rd/3.5, because alot of effort went into rules balance, and its alot more anti-munchkin IMHO.  Of course, like any other game, it all depends on the DM...  but in the games I've played where I've had a competent DM, its been alot more fun than 2e.

I started gaming as a player in the late 90's, when Basic was out of print and AD&D 2e was the only D&D there was. 3e came out and promised a return to the glory days of 1e, but I flat out hated it. Now that I was an OOPer, I decided to check out the supposed glories of 1e, and was not disappointed. It had everything I loved about 2e, yet simpler, more elegant, more flavorful, more fun.

I DM a 1e campaign weekly.

I recently rolled up a character in my friend's new 2e campaign, and I have to say, I don't even have nostalgia for it anymore. All the changes 2e made just really irk me. Regards.

OK. I had a 3E 5th level fighter/2nd level thief move 60', tumble past 5 opponents (no attacks allowed since tumble was successful), and jump over the head of the 8th level cleric leading the enemy forces. He then attacked and hit him for 1/3 of his hit points. It was all legal. Tell me that isn't power gaming. NO ONE could possibly pull that off in 1 round, in real life. Even a 12th level character in 1E wouldn't be able to do that, mainly because it's absurd. And my contention is that D&D should be based on real-life possibilities and limits, with some being stretched and/or broken due to the fact that it is a fantasy world. But fer chrissake, the fucking character was worse than Corwin of Amber. If he gained another level, I'd just proclaim him a minor deity and get him the fuck out. Thankfully he contracted super gangrene when he decided to rush 30 zombies and took a few bites (yes, my zombies actually can inflict disease). No cleric in the party, and no one wanted to raise him. He doesn't game with us anymore...
3E is a product of power-gaming, anime loving kids with too much money, and WoTC knows that. They also figure they can suck in a fair number of adults who refuse to give up gaming and will concede to 3E because that is what the majority of gamers know now. Things were fine and realistic with 1st ed., especially with the skills in Wilderness/DUngeoneer's Guide. I have always allowed characters to learn skills IF they invest time/money/research. A 3E thief can unlock a fucking Brinks truck at 4th level without breaking a sweat. And the leveling XP requirements are a joke. Just kill a few orcs per session and you will level weekly.
Let's not forget, now we have a plethora of fighter/sorcerer/thief/(insert desired prestige class here) characters. Class whores. 1 level of mage to be able to use mage hand and wizard items, etc.
The worst part is the lack of need for the remake. Lemme guess, in 3 years we'll be up to D&D 7.44 E? Sounds like a horror movie.........

3E is a product of power-gaming, anime loving kids with too much money, and WoTC knows that.

Too TRUE!  I think I'd enjoy Hackmaster since it's 'funny' and 1e-ish.

3E is an abomination of a game with much better art than 1 or 2e.

It's also a CRIME that 3.5 game out so soon after 3.0... what happened to 'years of play testing'?  How about a 'free' update rules WOTC instead of 100 bucks of new source books.

Anecdotally, I don't find people 'involved' with their game group or characters like I used to.  Perhaps it's because I'm older and don't have as much time to immerse myself in gaming as I used to.  Now, I find people who 'casually' run a 10th level wizard in a 'couple of different games' and they usually involve 'kicking the crap out of the DM'.  

Perhaps there needs to be better DM schooling but my early game days were exciting because every time we went into (B1,T1,G123,D12, s1, 2 and God Help Us S3!) we fought for our lives!  And it FELT like success if we made it back out alive much more if we actually beat the adventure.

I read the 3e modules now and they pretty much spoonfeed the victory ro the players.  Plus Challenge Ratings seem to be way too low.

Arggh.. Give me the OLD days.  Bring back D&D 'CLassic' Edition!

D&D has been moving away from its wargaming roots ever since its inception.  The game has moved away from realistic battle, and into the glorification of the individual.  This results in power gaming, because when the focus is 100% on the PC (3.5), the PC is no longer allowed to die.  Consider the play experiences I've seen so far (1979-2004):

Chainmail:  Heroes are portrayed as leaders commanding hundreds of troops.  Only they have even the merest inkling of personality; everyone else is cannon fodder.  Theme:  Brutal medieval warfare, survival of the fittest.

OD&D:  Characters have levels, stats, even personalities if you want them to.  But just about anyone at 1st level can die in one hit.  So adventuring groups consist of PCs commanding a small cadre of men-at-arms from behind, only occasionally dodging into battle themselves; they slowly learn and become more powerful, and move to the forefront.  But men-at-arms are always important to have around; you even get your own little army later on.  Theme:  Normal people rise to heroic status, struggling up from meager beginnings.

AD&D:  Characters become complex enough that they're all individualized and interesting; but, to save the DM's headaches, the number of hirelings, henchmen, etc. is usually kept to a reasonable minimum.  Also, hirelings have tricky issues with morale, danger, demanding treasure and giving it up, etc.  I feel this is the most interesting balance -- the PCs no longer need to cower, but they can't treat everyone around them like crap, or they'll be dead.  Theme:  Heroes are born, but they must also be made.  And early on, they're only as good as their backup is.

AD&D 2nd Edition:  Kits appear.  Some of them are cute and colorful, others are horribly overpowered.  Players learn that with proper kit selection, they can drop those pesky followers entirely, and become a small army in and of themselves.  Those who don't like it, either conform, or leave the game.  Theme:  Rules over roleplay.  If you're not exploiting the system, you're being exploited.

D&D 3.0:  The focus is strictly on character-building, not on personality building or strategic thinking.  You can plan out a character's stats up to level 20 or even beyond before you begin playing.  You don't react to your environment, you select a career path and step on the measly monsters in your way.  Players get everything they want; DMs are left to shake their heads sadly and wonder when they lost control of the game.  Theme:  Gimme.  DM, if you try to control this situation, I'll rules-lawyer you into the ground.  Who do you think you are, anyway?

D&D 3.5:  Things get worse.  Prestige classes (read:  superhero costumes) were originally offered as an interesting little variant.  Now, there are hundreds of them, and if you don't select one, you're laughed into the corner.  Players spend their time comparing incompatible sourcebooks written by different authors who have no idea what other people are writing.  Once they find a game-breaking combination of "feats" or whatever else, they design a new character.  Encounters are specifically designed to offer the illusion of challenge without real danger.  Leveling now occurs once every few hours, where it used to take weeks or months.  Theme:  Superheroes annoyed that their pension checks haven't arrived yet.  What, do they actually have to play this game to earn levels?

For obvious reasons, I choose 1st Edition AD&D.  But I think that Moldvay Basic-Expert (1980-81) is the cleanest and most enjoyable edition of the game from a newcomer's standpoint, and that's what I teach new players with.

By the way.. please proceed all my above comments with  

I still have those opinions but also realize that I'm using hyperbole to keep the conversation lively.

If I had a chance to game with a group of good folks and all they played was 3.5e, I'd be there in a heartbeat...

I got back into this stuff when 3E was released but only as an 'observer'(frankly I dont have the time to play, and lord knows where my nearest group would be in anycasse. I would have to say that 1st ed did it for me and 2nd kind of passed me by. As it goes I also dont understand all this stuff about power gaming etc - perhaps I was lucky that the guys I played with in my day were just not of this type - it just never really came up. I do remember ongoing letters in white dwarf about it where a couple of young lads were being royally screwed for saying i've got a 30th level this that or the other. I remember thinking that it really didnt matter and wondering why everone got so upset - lets face it, even after all these years it is just a game (isnt it!?) - If this kind of game floats thier boat well good luck - you dont have to like it or join in - live and let live I say.
Going back to the point - I kinda wish I'd have stayed with basic and gone through all the sets to 36th level , just for a laugh! - I think the rules were fairly sound, not overblown, and made for a smooth running, user friendly game.
((Does power gaming really matter anyway when we all fudge the dice in any case!!!(deny it at your peril - you know it's true!!))

all the best - Carl