Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1746492" data-attributes="member: 23012">All true!&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> But &quot;Basic D&amp;D&quot; is vague -- do you mean the original Holmes Basic Set, the classic Moldvay Basic set, or the Mentzer Basic set?Moreover, there was the D&amp;D system that was completely separate from AD&amp;D in the 1980s and early 1990s: namely, the Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert system of the early 80s (the sets with the classic Erol Otus covers), the Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals sets of the mid-late 80s, and the&nbsp; Rules Cylcopledia book of 1991 (which compiled all the rules from the Mentzer sets).&nbsp; These various boxes/books were, essentially, the same system -- namely, &quot;Dungeons and Dragons&quot;!And the Rules Cyclopedia D&amp;D (with a few house rules) was the best system to DM of all time IMO.&nbsp; (Albeit with a few house rules.)The feel was &quot;fast and furious&quot;, and &quot;let's let our imaginations rule!&quot;&nbsp; No worries about AoOs, feats, prestige classes, and all that crap!&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I agree with &quot;grim and gritty.&quot;&nbsp; Also too rule-heavy (with completely different mechanisms to cover different activities).&nbsp; However, you could easily ignore many rules (e.g. my group just used the Moldvay Basic combat rules, and ignored weapon speeds, segments, etc.) without hurting -- or &quot;breaking&quot; -- the game at all.&nbsp; Very modular.And the Trampier PHB cover is the all-time best cover in terms of capturing the &quot;true spirit&quot; of D&amp;D!&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> Bleah!&nbsp; A sanitized version of 1st edition for the kiddies.&nbsp; No more DEMONS and DEVILS.&nbsp; No more ASSASSIN class.&nbsp; No more half-orcs and barbarians.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> Nonetheless, despite the &quot;Mr.Clean&quot; rules, some good worlds: Darksun, Planescape, and Ravenloft.&nbsp; Far more original stuff than you see nowadays (e.g. Darksun didn't give a crap about &quot;not using all the official rules&quot;; one of Eberron's main boasts is that it can do this).Cinematic?&nbsp; What?&nbsp;&nbsp; :\ If you mean turning combat into a tactical wargame &quot;cinematic&quot;, then okay (in my books, constantly worrying about whether &quot;doing x&quot; will &quot;prompt an attack of opportunity&quot; is the antithesis of cinematic).&nbsp; Still, a system that enables the player a great degree of flexibility in designing her character.&nbsp; And it gives rules for everything for the DM who needs/likes them. I like 3.x enough to DM and play it, but it often feels like a video game, with its focus on feats, etc.&nbsp; It would be insufferable to DM with players who did not ROCK like mine do (but that is pretty much true of any game/editions).&nbsp; &nbsp;Yes.&nbsp; This is why I look forward to Castles and Crusades to recapture the &quot;old school feel&quot; of earlier editions of DnD, but with some of the &quot;stream-lining&quot; that d20 introduced.But in order to prevent any tedious flames here, I do like 3rd edition.&nbsp; I play it and (less frequently) DM it.&nbsp; However, I just think it is fundamentally different than earlier editions.&nbsp; In some respects better, in some respects worse.&nbsp;&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 1746492, member: 23012"] All true! :D But "Basic D&D" is vague -- do you mean the original Holmes Basic Set, the classic Moldvay Basic set, or the Mentzer Basic set? Moreover, there was the D&D system that was [I]completely[/I] separate from AD&D in the 1980s and early 1990s: namely, the Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert system of the early 80s (the sets with the classic Erol Otus covers), the Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals sets of the mid-late 80s, and the [U][B]Rules Cylcopledia [/B] [/U] book of 1991 (which compiled all the rules from the Mentzer sets). These various boxes/books were, essentially, the same system -- namely, "Dungeons and Dragons"! And the [U]Rules Cyclopedia [/U] D&D (with a few house rules) was [I]the[/I] best system to [I]DM[/I] of all time IMO. (Albeit with a few house rules.) The feel was "fast and furious", and "let's let our imaginations rule!" No worries about AoOs, feats, prestige classes, and all that crap! ;) I agree with "grim and gritty." Also too rule-heavy (with completely different mechanisms to cover different activities). However, you could easily [I]ignore [/I] many rules (e.g. my group just used the Moldvay Basic combat rules, and ignored weapon speeds, segments, etc.) without hurting -- or "breaking" -- the game at all. Very modular. And the Trampier PHB cover is the [I]all-time [/I] best cover in terms of capturing the "true spirit" of D&D! :cool: Bleah! A [I]sanitized [/I] version of 1st edition for the kiddies. No more DEMONS and DEVILS. No more ASSASSIN class. No more half-orcs and barbarians. :( Nonetheless, despite the "Mr.Clean" rules, some good worlds: Darksun, Planescape, and Ravenloft. Far more original stuff than you see nowadays (e.g. Darksun didn't give a crap about "not using all the official rules"; one of Eberron's main boasts is that it can do this). Cinematic? What? :\ If you mean turning combat into a tactical wargame "cinematic", then okay (in my books, constantly worrying about whether "doing x" will "prompt an attack of opportunity" is the antithesis of cinematic). Still, a system that enables the player a great degree of flexibility in designing her character. And it gives rules for [I]everything[/I] for the DM who needs/likes them. I like 3.x enough to DM and play it, but it often feels like a video game, with its focus on feats, etc. It would be insufferable to DM with players who did not [I]ROCK[/I] like mine do (but that is pretty much true of any game/editions). [B]Yes.[/B] This is why I look forward to [U]Castles and Crusades [/U] to recapture the "old school feel" of earlier editions of DnD, but with some of the "stream-lining" that d20 introduced. But in order to prevent any tedious flames here, I [I]do[/I] like 3rd edition. I play it and (less frequently) DM it. However, I just think it is fundamentally different than earlier editions. In some respects better, in some respects worse. :cool: [/QUOTE]

Verification