orcishgamer: Umm it's a different experience. Also, I'd just play the current edition, were I you, the odds of finding a non-nutcase group of people playing AD&D 2nd edition is low, they're bound to be rules lawyers and snobby. Besides AD&D was better:)
But seriously, play any pen and paper. Most of them are pretty fun with the right group (yep, it's 98% about the group).
HenriqueVT: Ok, now, I love the concept of role-playing and I'm already reading up on how D&D works (so far it's pretty good), but I hear a lot of bad stuff about the current edition (4th) and people say the 3.5 edtion is better.
Which one would you personally recommend? (Not the one that's easier to get into, but rather the one that offers the most complete package.)
Collecting 3.5 is a losing investment at this point. I personally don't like it because rules lawyers seem to like it so much, that and combat with a group of kobolds can take 4 hours. It's no fun.
Now, 4th ed still has power creep and there is a load of abilities of which you must keep track, but overall it's not bad, especially at low level, it's terribly simple and fun. You can get by with just the one book (as a player, not a DM). If you want a slightly more expensive book and a more "3.5 type" experience, minus some of the suck, just buy the Pathfinder book and play that instead. Again, one book, and it's more dense but still not terrible.
Again, don't consider 3.5 at all, if you really prefer that style of rules, Pathfinder is better. Also, their map piece sets are awesome.