Quote from: Theory of Games on January 25, 2021, 10:00:16 AM
All I need:

I have to say, despite my love of AD&D2E, if I ever had to pick one book to play for the rest of my life, RC would be it.

My preferred edition of d&d is a blend between 1st and 2nd edition, although I'm a big fan of the Rules cyclopedia as well. 5E is probably my favorite out of the wizards of the coast versions, but even that becomes a superheroic high powered slog around 6th level or so.

My preferred games in general are OSR. My favorites being Astonishing Swordsmen and Soecerers of Hyperborea, Crypts and Things, and Dungeon Crawl Classics.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 25, 2021, 01:14:11 PM

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 25, 2021, 10:06:33 AM
This Gygax quote is so, so bad.

And yet it is true...

Yeah.  I have to agree.

Don't see anything in there to argue with.

2nd Edition is my favorite edition.  To me, it's got everything I want.  I'd play it, any day, given the choice of editions.  5e is an okay system, and it does exactly what the WotC wanted it to do.  To me, it feels a bit too homogenized for my tastes.

Yes, pin me down and make me a pick a published edition, it will be Rules Cyclopedia.

My favorite is some house-rulesd version of B/X or 5e.

I think 5e is better than most editions, but Moldvay's basic is really great, it contains so much in so little space.

2e has awesome settings, OD&D and AD&D the have the seeds of everything we like about AD&D, etc.

But yeah, if you have to pick one single book, the RC rules.

QuoteDon't see anything in there to argue with.

Of course there is. Let's comment each singular option:

QuoteThe new D&D is too rule intensive.

Utterly subjective opinion.

QuoteIt's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game.

Generally speaking being master of the game means controlling enviroment, NPC's, storyflow, occurences, random events and so on, and so on. There are some games that limits DM more, but it's rare. Using rules according to the book, does not take control out of GM - because well he decides what sort of trials put before a team, and can use both light and crunchy mechanics to craft proper scale for his taste. Leaving holes in rules, and saying - each GM should use his own judgement in otherwise quite crunchy game is not really that good of design. Me having to invent enviromental rules for various combat situation is not necessary what I want.

One can argue that heavy rules can be bit of chore for a DM and with that I can agree. We run two PF1/3,5 campaigns and it's quite chore for me, while my mathematically aligned, economics pHD GM who runs second one flows through intricacies without much problem, as it's definitely simpler that market of corn syrup.

QuoteIt's done away with the archetypes,

Allowing to play non-exactly archetypical fantasy - putting aside fact that well fantasy is living literature and new popular archetypes appears.
And while Gygax started with only few archetypes, then thief was added (even if he was archetypical from the get go), more knight types, Tolkienic archetypes, and so on.
I'd say each of 12 core classes in D&D 5e is very archetypical - partially because D&D give all it's classes sort of d&D archetypism over early sources.

Druid archetype is now D&D archetype, having little to do with Celtic priestly classes, same with bard (also Celtic priestly profession).

Quotefocused on nothing but combat and character power,

D&D are game derived from wargames. They were always quite combat heavy. There were always power creep.
And well later editions added skills which allows characters to aside war - serve different social and exploratory roles.
Your wizard can also be wanna be survivalist and tracker if you lack ranger, your druid can be diplomat who speak for a trees.

Quotelost the group cooperative aspect,

Good job winning any decent fight in later systems without cooperation. Control spells, buffs, flanking, positioning and so on - tactical element was uplifted.

Quotebastardized the class-based system,

By making them less all-fighters are the same. Yes. And that's good thing. Meanwhile - basic roles both in fight and outside are still kept, still necessary for most games to procure - you need various fighting roles: tanks, strikers, artillery, controllers, buffers, you need various social options, and you need competent skills to survive in various enviroments.

Quoteand resembles a comic-book superheroes game

Indeed, on later levels yes. It goes from common heroics to greek heroes to wuxia to superheroes.

Quotemore than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."

I see no reason why modern D&D would force you to play LG. If anything zeitgeist promotes CG characters because muh freedom.
And srsly Gary - it was you who invented stupid descriptions of alignments that are used since you added Good-Evil axis, that makes CN and CE almost unplayable as a sociopaths, you basically described Chaotic as equivalent of low Wisdom score, you made Paladin so uber-and-over LG (even though it's based on elite French knights not saints) that we needed several editions to get proper variants for non LG divine champions of various causes.

Quote from: RandyB on January 25, 2021, 11:02:05 AM
AD&D. 1e as the base, with 2e materials as optional and supplemental.

Now if OSR and retroclones are also in scope, ACKS is in a dead heat with the above.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 26, 2021, 09:37:31 AM

QuoteDon't see anything in there to argue with.

Of course there is. Let's comment each singular option:

QuoteThe new D&D is too rule intensive.

Utterly subjective opinion.

QuoteIt's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game.

Generally speaking being master of the game means controlling enviroment, NPC's, storyflow, occurences, random events and so on, and so on. There are some games that limits DM more, but it's rare. Using rules according to the book, does not take control out of GM - because well he decides what sort of trials put before a team, and can use both light and crunchy mechanics to craft proper scale for his taste. Leaving holes in rules, and saying - each GM should use his own judgement in otherwise quite crunchy game is not really that good of design. Me having to invent enviromental rules for various combat situation is not necessary what I want.

One can argue that heavy rules can be bit of chore for a DM and with that I can agree. We run two PF1/3,5 campaigns and it's quite chore for me, while my mathematically aligned, economics pHD GM who runs second one flows through intricacies without much problem, as it's definitely simpler that market of corn syrup.

QuoteIt's done away with the archetypes,

Allowing to play non-exactly archetypical fantasy - putting aside fact that well fantasy is living literature and new popular archetypes appears.
And while Gygax started with only few archetypes, then thief was added (even if he was archetypical from the get go), more knight types, Tolkienic archetypes, and so on.
I'd say each of 12 core classes in D&D 5e is very archetypical - partially because D&D give all it's classes sort of d&D archetypism over early sources.

Druid archetype is now D&D archetype, having little to do with Celtic priestly classes, same with bard (also Celtic priestly profession).

Quotefocused on nothing but combat and character power,

D&D are game derived from wargames. They were always quite combat heavy. There were always power creep.
And well later editions added skills which allows characters to aside war - serve different social and exploratory roles.
Your wizard can also be wanna be survivalist and tracker if you lack ranger, your druid can be diplomat who speak for a trees.

Quotelost the group cooperative aspect,

Good job winning any decent fight in later systems without cooperation. Control spells, buffs, flanking, positioning and so on - tactical element was uplifted.

Quotebastardized the class-based system,

By making them less all-fighters are the same. Yes. And that's good thing. Meanwhile - basic roles both in fight and outside are still kept, still necessary for most games to procure - you need various fighting roles: tanks, strikers, artillery, controllers, buffers, you need various social options, and you need competent skills to survive in various enviroments.

Quoteand resembles a comic-book superheroes game

Indeed, on later levels yes. It goes from common heroics to greek heroes to wuxia to superheroes.

Quotemore than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."

I see no reason why modern D&D would force you to play LG. If anything zeitgeist promotes CG characters because muh freedom.
And srsly Gary - it was you who invented stupid descriptions of alignments that are used since you added Good-Evil axis, that makes CN and CE almost unplayable as a sociopaths, you basically described Chaotic as equivalent of low Wisdom score, you made Paladin so uber-and-over LG (even though it's based on elite French knights not saints) that we needed several editions to get proper variants for non LG divine champions of various causes.

So, basically, you admit that everything Gary said was accurate, you just disagree that it's a bad thing.  This has to be one of the biggest self-owns I think I've ever seen...

Quote from: Gary Gygax
The new D&D is too rule intensive.

Gary have you never seen the ADnD Books?   

Gary is guilty of the sin of stating his beliefs without endlessly qualifying them to allow for contrary beliefs.  Which always draws contrarians out of the wood work in a way unique to him, while his detractors state their own beliefs as certainly, and allow others to state beliefs just as certainly, without challenge or qualification. 

But for some reason Gygax statements hit their Id in a way that can't be ignored

Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 02:58:22 PM

Quote from: Gary Gygax
The new D&D is too rule intensive.

Gary have you never seen the ADnD Books?   

QuoteSo, basically, you admit that everything Gary said was accurate, you just disagree that it's a bad thing.  This has to be one of the biggest self-owns I think I've ever seen...

Let's say. Gary Gygax's statement consisted of 8 elements that should be judged independently.
Of those I quite blatantly disagreed with 5.
Maybe I should be less polite about it

QuoteBut for some reason Gygax statements hit their Id in a way that can't be ignored

Ah, yes. Famous - if you react to statement you disagree with, you prove they were right - fallacy.
This is discussion board, sir.

QuoteGary have you never seen the ADnD Books?   

Quote from: BronzeDragon on January 25, 2021, 09:42:38 PM
I have to say, despite my love of AD&D2E, if I ever had to pick one book to play for the rest of my life, RC would be it.

For a single volume set of rules, I'd prefer the OSRIC hardback over the RC. Honorable mentions to AS&SH and the BRP Gold Book.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 26, 2021, 07:50:13 PM

QuoteBut for some reason Gygax statements hit their Id in a way that can't be ignored

Ah, yes. Famous - if you react to statement you disagree with, you prove they were right - fallacy.
This is discussion board, sir.

The only thing proven so far is you're hallucinating sentences not written.  My post is still right up there for reference.  Should people hallucinating sentences into a fallacy debate the writings they read?  That's an interesting question.