This is such a elusive subject.
Beoric is reporting good experiences with a modified 4e, Malrex likes 2e, and DP touts the superiority of 5e. Personally, I saw good and bad DMing in the AD&D era, did not like where I saw the game heading in 2e, and was completely turned off on the arrival of 3e.
I like the fact that this topic always generates so many interesting posts---in particular I enjoy reading about everyone's personal journey to "the Greater D&D" (even though Melan and I don't use the term the same way...and I'm still
waiting for him to post something on his blog about it!).
I keep trying to formulate in my mind some sort of
Statement of Truth or at least a
small insight, but it's difficult and my thoughts remain in flux.
On a related note I recently re-read many of Anthony Huso's post on DMing over at Blue Bard. He makes such a compelling argument for the mechanics of AD&D, that I began to waiver on my AD&D to OD&D migration---like often before, I've begun wondering if I could make it better for my players "if only...".
I currently don't agree with DP's assertion that the rules are entirely independent of game-feel. I think each edition lends itself to a different-flavor of game. When I read the 5e SRD as he suggested, there were certainly elements in there that I knew were incompatible with the experience I enjoyed as a player and wanted to pass on in my current home campaign. Too many differences that would notably alter something I particularly enjoyed. We all may not be master sophists, but I think each and every one of us has a pretty good personal sense for "...but that would
ruin it!" and/or "That's not the same thing
at all!"
It's not just nostalgia---that belittles the true differences. Steak does not taste like chicken, vanilla is not chocolate. The fundamental difficulty in arguing this point is (as in DP's post above) insistence on
objective evidence of what is better. When it comes to "better" and "gaming-fun"---there is no objectivity. You either like chocolate (or coconut, or beans, or tree bark, etc.), or you don't.
What would be really cool to see (if it exists) is a
table/matrix of editions and exactly what changed between each of them---not that such a thing would fundamentally move anyone's needle, but it still would be handy.
Delta's D&D Hot Spot does a bit of this with spells.
You can certainly argue,
"Come on! Just try edition Chocolate. It tastes great too.". However, no matter what you do or say, chocolate will not be vanilla, and everyone will still have a favorite flavor. The logical mistake is to claim (despite however satisfying it is to say publicly)
"Fools! Chocolate objectively tastes better!" (Just to be clear, no one is saying that here.)
I am always interested to hear when (like on Huso's, Gus L's, Melan's, Ben L's, and others posts) that things are really working well for a DM. I am also slightly suspicious that their/your tastes differ from mine and that I might not enjoy it as much as they/you think I will. What's more, it seems a Fool's Errand to debate with me or others of "what's best". Instead, just tell me your story...I will listen (if it's good).
Sorry if this was stuffed with too much "Mom and Apple Pie" to be of interest, but I can only speak passionately about my preferences (and please don't take it personally when I do).
Anyways...at some point I'm going to re-hijack this thread and tell you all about the game I ran last weekend in the Royal Palace. As you might have guessed, not all went according to plan. (...which is what makes DMing so much fun!)
Lastly,
@Beoric : I think you are on to something about the necessity of taking ownership of the game. Maybe we can kick that topic around some more later.
(he he...3 ancient red dragons in Hommlet!)