question for d&d players out there.

[breadisfunny]

what version of d&d do you play/prefer? also what is your favorite type of campaign to play? (sorry if this is the wrong forum wasn't sure if this goes in books/tv/movies/comics or general ot.)what is your favorite d&d type race? are there any settings you find fun orinteresting? what are you favorite d&d related books? what gods in d&d do you find the most interesting from a lore perspective. this is the thread to talk about anything related to d&d.

me personally i like to play pure 3.5. (yes i play d&d.)i like to play evil type campaigns as i find them to be quite interesting and a refreshing escape from the usual good/neutral hero archetypes

please dont start any edition wars.also please list any book related spoilers in a spoiler tag.

[The Riddler]

I cut my teeth on the Basic Edition, and then went on to the Advanced D&D. I kept playing through 3rd edition but I haven't played in over 10 years now. I prefer the grand heroic epic style of campaign. I find evil ones to be one-dimensional and typically are run by people who have no idea how to do them.

Evil people are criminals, and yet no DM bothers having the characters deal with that reality. Life as an evil character should be merry - but very very short... If the DM isn't constantly having you being hunted down, chased, and otherwise running up against the consequences of your choices then they're doing it wrong.

[Zao]

I usually DM Pathfinder, so basically extended 3.5.

Although I focus my campaigns more on RP than on combat (which admittedly is not ideal with PF). I also don't allow evil characters and males playing as females.

I've yet to see any of those played well. Usually I tell people who want to play evil to either play chaotic neutral, which allows them to justify quite a few things with "because I felt like it" or Lawful neutral, which can be almost lawful evil with an inquisitor type. As long as they don't overdo it that's fine by me.
But any of the evil alignments simply does not fit in a group consisting mostly of good and neutral players. It causes too much tension, that would cause a decently played group to disband rather quickly or kill the evil sucker.

Edit: To answer your question: The generic setting suits me just fine. But I'd love to play planescape at one point or another. But I'm too lazy to read up on all the background.

[Sorensen]

I don't know I'm only in my second campaign ever. More like first really I kinda got shoved into the last session of another campaign and I had no idea what was going on. But I think its advanced v3.5 but I'm not sure.

It's fun though.

[Urti]

I started with 2ed/2ed revised (god I feel ancient), but have played all of them at one time or another. I like all of them for one thing or another, but my favorite is probably 2ed revised. The mechanics were wonky but the settings and background lore just friggin exploded. I loved 'em all; Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, even Spelljammer. 3.5/Pathfinder had much better mechanics and is prolly the best in that regard, but if 4th edition showed me anything it's that story, setting, and background are every bit as important as mechanics. 4th edition was a good game, but with such drastic retconning and outright ignoring 30 years of background, it felt like it was DnD in name only.

[ovm33]

2.0

Used to play it quite heavily, but now it's like a once a year thing, and we still play 2.0

[Thage]

I like 3.5e, Pathfinder, and 4e equally, but I cut my teeth on AD&D 2E and the altered D&D 2E ruleset used in Baldur's Gate (as well as the '2.5e' ruleset used in Baldur's Gate II, where some 3e elements were incorporated.