Quote from: Benoist;518863And you shouldn't get sand in your vagina because I did what you did, which is give a different perspective on something you expressed a different perspective on yourself. Is that cool with you, or should I ask for permission first?

It's fine by me, but don't get all "We already discussed all this!!!" as if you have proven that your perspective is the only one with validity.  Especially if you drop a flow-chart with a straight line from AD&D to 2e AD&D as your "proof" that 2e has a different paradigm or whatever.

Seriously, this is one of those topics where you seem to have a weird obsession with being "right."  It's totally ok that we don't agree on this minor point.

Quote from: misterguignol;518864It's fine by me, but don't get all "We already discussed all this!!!" as if you have proven that your perspective is the only one with validity.  Especially if you drop a flow-chart with a straight line from AD&D to 2e AD&D as your "proof" that 2e has a different paradigm or whatever.

Dude that's not even making sense.

You're the one who's trying to build an argument that has fuck all to do with what I was saying (i.e. that I should displace the AD&D2 on that chart because of what I said earlier). I mean it's cool and all if you are that dumb that you actually did not understand anything to whatever I was saying earlier, or if you are willfully misconstruing what I was saying for it to mean something completely different (hint: I acknowledged multiple times that that AD&D and AD&D2 share most of their rules, that they are compatible in terms of uses of monsters and modules and all that in many ways, but that was never my point all along, and you're acting like a bunch of fucking retards to believe this is what it's about).

You don't want any dialog and want to tell me to go fuck myself with my chart? Fine.

Quote from: misterguignol;518864Seriously, this is one of those topics where you seem to have a weird obsession with being "right."

It's because I am.

Quote from: Benoist;518865Dude that's not even making sense.

You're the one who's trying to build an argument that has fuck all to do with what I was saying (i.e. that I should displace the AD&D2 on that chart because of what I said earlier). I mean it's cool and all if you are that dumb that you actually did not understand anything to whatever I was saying earlier, or if are willfully misconstruing what I was saying for it to mean something completely different (hint: I acknowledged multiple times that that AD&D and AD&D2 share most of their rules, that they are compatible in terms of uses of monsters and modules and all that in many ways, but that was never my point all along, and you're acting like a bunch of fucking retards to believe this is what it's about).

You don't want any dialog and want to tell me to go fuck myself with my chart? Fine.

It's because I am.

Ben, I like you, but wtf?  You are not exactly proving me wrong when I said you had a bizarre need to be right about this topic.  

Also, I never told you to go fuck yourself.  Seriously, I didn't feel the need to call you any names, why do you?

Because I hate being taken for a moron.

PS: I like you too.

Quote from: misterguignol;518864It's totally ok that we don't agree on this minor point.

Actually, I'm going to answer that too.

I disagree with people I like every day. It's fine with me. This does not jeopardize my feelings about people in general. But make no mistake: as far as D&D is concerned, this is far from being a "minor point" I'm trying to make. It's actually kind of a big deal, to me.

Now okay, I get it, I'm in the minority in seeing it that way. But it's something which, to me, gets to the heart of a lot of piss poor gaming experiences people are bitching about on zillions of forums and on message boards and wherever, why and how these piss poor experiences occur, and something which could be solved is such easy ways that it's kind of frustrating to make the same points over and over and have them fall on deaf ears or worse, people trying to make fun of them like they're not even cogent to them. Like I'm not able to articulate what it is I'm really trying to say.

Yeah. I'm sensitive about it. I admit it. It's frustrating.

Don't worry, mate. I'll get over it.

Quote from: Benoist;518853The natural evolution of OD&D to me is AD&D.

Yeah, I agree.  I think it's pretty obvious if you play OD&D with the supplements, and then compare that with B/X and with AD&D.  All of them were ultimately derived from OD&D, of course, but AD&D is the most natural development of OD&D + Supplements.  B/X was both a pruning away and also something of a separate vision which springs from the same roots.

Quote from: misterguignol;518849Oddly, I feel the opposite.  I'm thankful that 2e exists to bring clarity and organization to the Advanced D&D line in much the same way that I'm thankful that B/X exists to bring clarity and organization to the OD&D line.

Yeah, I can't get behind either of those opinions.  The way I see it, if 2e brought clarity, it did so at the expense of flavor and soul.  (A Miller Lite is beer, and it's nice and clear, but I'd rather have a Guinness.)  And I think that most of the actual rules changes were for the worse, even if they were clearly presented (e.g. the changes to initiative).

As far as B/X bringing clarity to OD&D, I suppose you could say that, but I'd also characterize B/X as a cut-down subset of OD&D.  That is, lesser, in ways that are important to me.  I don't think B/X is bad; indeed, I think it's a great version of D&D, especially for pick-up games or convention-type games with strangers where you just want to sit down and play without worrying about a bunch of more complicated rules or house rules or interpretations.  But I still find it too vanilla to be my first (or second) choice for my regular D&D campaign.

Time machine from 1989:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/2ebook.pdf

Quote from: Benoist;518853The natural evolution of OD&D to me is AD&D. It's not B/X. OD&D and AD&D are similar to me in that they are collections of disparate rules that emphasize the role of the DM as adjudicator and referee of the campaign,

Translation: "The best part of OD&D/AD&D is that Gygax was incompetent when it came to writing rules, couldn't organize a rulebook to save his life, and didn't actually use (or bother playtesting) a sizable chunk of the rules he published in his core rulebooks."

Quote from: misterguignol;518857Shrug, we're always going to see that differently.  I see both lines are two divergent ways to play a game that has its common DNA in OD&D.

If we lay aside "race as class" as the 400 lb. gorilla in the room, it's really easy to see that the two divergent lines of D&D--

OD&D -> AD&D -> AD&D2
OD&D -> Holmes -> B/X -> BECMI

--were both primarily defined, at every step, by a slow accretion of new options. A secondary factor was occasionally culling material (although never culling very much and never anything that could be found in the White Box). And a distant tertiary factor was actually revising and cleaning up the mechanics.

3rd Edition was interesting because it actually picked up the accretions and a lot of the revised mechanics on both tracks, while adding its own accretions and revisions.

Both AD&D and B/X are both basically "OD&D with extra stuff tacked on wherever we thought it would look good".

Translation: you're just being a complete douchebag now, Justin. Well played, Sir. Well played. Are you drunk?

"I voted for Jimmy!  How the hell did Reagan get elected?!?"

In all honesty, if one played btb 1e for 12 years in a bubble and the was handed 2e in 89, I imagine it would have been a shock.  But, the writing had been on the wall for ten odd years and who the hell played btb (I actually don't know as I was brought on board in 95)?  

JJ and the Alexandrian are still pwning the Carter loyalist if my scorecard is correct.

"Damn cassette tapes, who the hell wants em?  And Michael Jackson and those silly frisbee Compact Discs!"