Choose as many as you want. You don't have to love the ones you pick and you don't have to hate the ones you don't pick, this is just a thread for registering what your favorite versions of this game were.

There were some other, minor editions of the game published as well, if you liked one of those let us know in the comments.

Rules Compendium and Mentzer Boxed Sets are listed together because I only get 10 choices and IMO those are the most similar distinct editions, rules-wise.

"Choose as many as you want. "

D'oh!

Rules Cyclopedia, all the way.  I also didn't mind pre-heavy splat 2e, and 3e, while not my first game of choice, was entertaining to play.

I chose: Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic and Expert Sets

Had I taken the time to read that you can post more than one I'd have added:

Advanced D&D, 1e (early books - pre-Dragonlance, pre-UA)

I didn't mind UA and Dragonlance, but the later stuff like the Wilderness and Dungeoneers Survival guides I didn't care for.

In order of preference:

1.  Moldvay/Cook Basic & Expert D&D (OTUS covers!)
2.  Rules Cyclopedia D&D (one book!)
3.  AD&D 1e, pre-UA (DMG 1e rules!)

Man, I wanted to vote C&C.

I like C&C a lot, but it's not a version of D&D. If it doesn't have the name, it ain't the game.

4e raises the question of whether it's the game even if it does have the name, but fortunately we don't have to go there in this thread, because it's not out yet.

Quote from: CalithenaI like C&C a lot, but it's not a version of D&D. If it doesn't have the name, it ain't the game.

Yeah, but Unca Gary calls it "The game as it was meant to be played", so...thence my frame of mind.

I want to say: LBBs. But whom am I kidding? I love 1E.

I even love the Cavalier. Such is my decrepitude.

Guess.  

Early first edition all the way, back then D&D knew what it was and what it did and wasn't trying to be things it wasn't and it was great because of it.

I really wish I liked C&C better than I do.  As it stands I dislike it quite a bit.  I dislike the SEIGE engine and prime stat system as it pigeon holes characters without doing anything to define them.  I dislike the magic system because it didn't standardize spell effects or give sleep a saving throw.  I dislike the weapons list because it doesn't do much to differentiate weapons and apparently a nine rings broadsword is the only weapon anyone with 30gp would carry anyhow.  I dislike some of the open ended choices made for some of the classes but not others (rangers +1 damage per level I'm lookin' right at you!).

In the end it's just another crippled version of a game that never quite manages to get a decent and functional edition because it's trying to be all things to all people instead of just being what it is.

Quote from: David JohansenI really wish I liked C&C better than I do.  As it stands I dislike it quite a bit.  I dislike the SEIGE engine and prime stat system as it blah blah blah filthy Commie lies.

Okay, we're not friends anymore.

Seriously, mileage varies, don' t it?

I had high hopes for C&C. I really tried to like it. But I share David's opinion. As a system, C&C isn't really much of an improvement on 2E. And the books are a lot uglier.

MY D&D is the best one for me.
iirc it was 2nd Edition with lots of house-rules.