Are our tastes set?

[Foodgeek]

Skycrawl is great, BTW. Having a lot of fun with it.

 

[Jahydin]

Just watched an interesting video from Rick Beato where he talks about "Fluid vs Crystalized" intelligence and how it relates to musicians.

Might have something to do with why we gravitate towards systems we already know?

 

[Distracted DM]

I started with 2e, played many other systems after it, and currently run a lot of 5e.

If I had my choice for forever-game, I'd be running Dungeon Crawl Classics. 5e is too high-powered, high-fantasy for my tastes. I eventually discovered that I really like Sword & Sorcery, which DCC does much better than 5e or even 2e. 2e... I love it a lot, but I don't know it well enough now to compare it to 5e properly. I never ran much 2e, maybe half a dozen sessions, many years ago- I played it for years though!

 

[jdrakeh]

If I could only choose one D&D, it would be Holmes core rules (which is, indeed, the edition I first played) + class progression and monsters from AD&D 1e. Which is a bit of a cheat, but these rule books, as published were: Holmes first, then the AD&D 1e Monster Manual, then the AD&D 1e PHB. AD&D wasn't really complete until the DMG hit in 1979 (two years after Holmes and the MM, one year after the PHB).

 

[niklinna]

A curious post. The title posits a question, and then the post itself assumes an answer to that question.

My tastes are not set. Outside of that I got over D&D and all its wonky premises and broken promises a while ago. I'd rather play revolve around player character goals and motivations than if I get a +1 in this or that particular tactical combat hit/damage roll, or GM-really-decides "role play" situation.

If I had to choose one version of D&D I had to play for the rest of my life (perhaps in some Greek underworld of torments), I suppose it would be 4e. (But of course in such a scenario I'd be given the worst possible DM for 4e, so I am trapped regardless!)

If D&D-adjacent/inspired games like Dungeon World or Stonetop count, well then any of those. I am having a blast in a Stonetop campaign right now playing The Ranger and he's actually a ranger, how 'bout that?

 

[niklinna]

Well, find this curious after the formative years imprint our taste thread posted recently. A generality, of course, but one I find the majority of folks fit into. I heard a theory once that pops up from time to time called creator, critic, or consumer. Theory is that most folks will lean heavily into one category (but certainly all folks wear all hats at time). I see folks that spend their day browsing and participating in fora about RPGs are likely in the critics. So, the our/we/you are not "set" line likley applies to folks here at EN World, but may not hold in general. I think a lot of folks are indeed set.

A three-way typology! I know this! (Just like I know UNIX. (That's a cultural movie reference, kids.))

Which one is the gamist, which one is the dramatist, and which is the simulationist?

 

[dvar]

I think mine are. Spent the last 5 years with rules cyclopedia. I do skim through other ruleset but none interest me more. For some sessions I prefer Lotfp - but that is pretty much the same?

 

[CellarHeroes]

When I have run a fantasy game it has been some form of D&D. Whenever I needed to make a ruling, I would nearly always find myself referring to the Rules Cyclopedia. It took some time for me to figure out that RC is my favorite.

Shhh...don't tell the other editions.

 

[Jack Daniel]

▯

 

[sophotek_bliss]

Started with AD&D 2nd, but would probably choose B/X. To me it feels the most well-rounded edition.
But if you're including all the supplementary material with the edition choice, I would probably stick with 2nd since the pure amount of various settings and supplements for that one would be good for an entire lifetime.