Glgnfz
|
Traditional Topic/Poll Number 1:for me it's still mentzer, but only because i started with it, know it best and have no problems with the terrible organization, as i know nearly all the charts and stats - if i don't, i know the page and the book where they can be found.
|
Plaag
|
Wow, thats the same version I started with. And it introduced us to Bargle 
ShaneG.
|
Rafael
|
Oh, I voted RC, for it is so *handy*. For advanced gaming, I'd use Mentzer, of course!
|
VAN
|
I have played Cyclopedia for a while, loooooooong time ago, and I rememeber I had ahd fun! 
|
Cab
|
Played Moldvay first, but I think that Mentzer is better, more complete; for an everyday reference, RC is most useful.
But you have to say, the original game is still very playable, and it has the advantage of being the first real RPG, making it one of he most important things published in its era.
|
VAN
|
| Cab wrote: | | But you have to say, the original game is still very playable, and it has the advantage of being the first real RPG, making it one of he most important things published in its era. |
Totally true, everything begun from that! :haha:
|
Rhuvein
|
Holmes for me as it was my first intro to the game. 
Otherwise, I could easily go with Mentzer's version and/or the RC.
|
Rafael
|
For me, the crucial point is readability. The White Box is badly layouted from today's POV, while Mentzer and the RC are books one can actually work with, like Cab said, as an everyday reference. 
|
Cab
|
I feel that although it isn't the edition I play, I should stick up for Moldvay/Cook. That version of the game is very elegant, achieving an awful lot in two clearly laid out thin pamphlets. The Mentzer version is more complete, and in many ways better, but if what you're after is a simple reference work for a very streamlined game then Moldvay/Cook is where its at.
|
sieg
|
For nostalgia, Holmes (my wife's fave too) but in overall playability and ease of organization it'd have to be Moldvay. Which is odd, since of all the D&Ds I've played its the most recent. I only discovered it back in 1999 or so (!) 
|
alhoon
|
I can't vote in that as in fact Cyclopedia is very much like the Mentzer thing... without immortals. However It has a very good weapon system that I try to integrate in 3rd edition. So why I can't vote for that?
1. Yes, the boxes had Bargle. I would add this as a point even if it wasn't already mentioned, believe it or not.
2. They had more examples and another... feel to them.
So I can't decide.
And Van you have played both Cyclopedia and the Basic Boxed set.
|
VAN
|
| alhoon wrote: | | And Van you have played both Cyclopedia and the Basic Boxed set. |
Yes, but I don't remember anything about it! :laughing9:
|
ewancummins
|
RC gets my vote. Very good reference, well laid out, nice summary of the Known Wolrd included. Heck, I still have my [very worn] copy of it. Mentzer would be a close second, as I started with that one.
I run using D20 rules, but I try and keep some of that old school feel in all my games. Old school rules!
|
Havard
|
What no chance of voting for the Black Box or the "Classic D&D" boxed set? Just kidding! 
I considered voting for the RC, but to be honest felt like I had no choice but to vote for Mentzer.
Havard
|
leadjunkie
|
I started in 1976. My DM had the Wood Grain Box and I bought the White Box as soon as possible. I never played any of the other additions. I jumped straight to AD&D 1e.
|
Gawain_VIII
|
Since RC is just a re-formatting of Mentzer's rules, they should be a single vote, however, due to the convenience, I voted RC over Mentzer. But it was a tough choice, the Mentzer sets had something which the RC lacked--IN GAME SAMPLES! The intro adventure of the red box, the sample wilderness & town in the blue box (ok RC had the wilderness, but not the Threshold info), Example dominions in the green box... etc, etc...
Roger
|
Cab
|
RC gives us Mystic as a fully fledged character class (allbeit one lacking the development that Frank Mentzer hinted that it needed), a skills system taken from the Gaz series, a few extra spells... It IS different to the boxed sets, but only a little. It lacks a few things, but none of the content that was taken out matters as much as the loss of context.
The boxed sets teach you the game incrementally; simple dungeon adventures, wilderness, broader campaigns and dominions/mations, cross planar adventures/global, and finally multiversal. The five sets give us context; how do you correctly balance encounters with, say, kobolds and their pet rust monster (all basic level monsters) against a party equipped with nets, weapon mastery and specialist skills (Companion, Masters and Gaz series additions) unless you understand the context of what came when?
But theres more even than that; when you add things to a game incrementally then you're giving a DM a chance to grow and learn/develop his own way of doing things. The more rules there are at the beginning, the harder that is. Rules Cyclopedia is an absolutely invaluable reference guide, but it isn't the best way to learn the game. I mourned the passing of the boxed sets.
|
Gawain_VIII
|
Agreed, Cab.
|
Rafael
|
For me, the main objection with the boxes is that they are, well, boxes, and thus not so easy to be transported.
The RC jsut fits in my gaming bag and I can take it with me wherever I go.
However, they are a very didactic method to learn an RPG.
|
Cab
|
| Rafael wrote: |
However, they are a very didactic method to learn an RPG. |
Its always worth remembering that this is what the BECMI series was for. It was split into four boxed set (Immortals wasn't part of the original plan) because (a) you can then sell lots of boxes and (b) you can teach the game incrementally.
I gather from Frank that the idea of a compendium of rules was discussed while he was still at TSR, but nothing came of it. The idea of a compendium for experienced players is excellent, and the RC is an incredibly useful resource. But the RC became more than that, it effectively replaced the first four sets... And as a replacement, it is clear that the RC is an enormous opportunity missed. It could have addressed the race-class-level anomaly, it could have clarified combat into one simple set of rules, it could have really revitalised the game and cleared out some of the anachronisms that had persisted since Moldvay/Cook and earlier, yet it did not. I've always thought that was a shame.
Still, I've got three RC's, I use them every week in my regular game, thats Tuesday night, and no doubt they'll get their weekly airing!
|
Rafael
|
I have two RCs, one in English, and one German I recently purchased.
Still, for me at least, the single best RPG rulebook that exists, even though it has its flaws.
I think I am going to run a RC based game later this year - maybe I'll run DA2 or something like that.
|
gsvenson
|
The original edition is the only one I used until Blackmoor was republished in the 3.5e rule set.
|
Glgnfz
|
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! svenny is inda house! hi!
|
gsvenson
|
Hi Moritz,
Nice to see you are here, too. I do miss having Brumm at my side in the Grim Winter game...
|
Glgnfz
|
aaargh! i don't know why i haven't continued playing brumm. no time, no energy - damn job!!!
let's hope we can "revive" him some day!
|
Apercu
|
I have three of the titles on the list, but I'm gonna have to vote Moldvay/Cook on this. Many hours of fun back in the day with those books.
|
ExTSR
|
Similar to others' preferences, I had to vote for my starting set, the original Brown, instead of the one I wrote. ;>
Frank M
|
Glgnfz
|
hi frank! nice to have you here.
as there were no holmes or moldvay-versions over here in germany , you're THE MAN. till 1999 i thought the red box WAS the original d&d.
a few weeks ago a guy tried to sell the red box on german ebay with a starting bid of 130€ - apparently he thought it was the "real thing", too.
i sent him a message and he went down to 80€, then 70€...
in the end he sold it for 25€, which is not too bad, as they usually sell for 10-15€.
|
Apercu
|
Since we're discussing which version we prefer, I just wanted to point out to anybody who might be in the Berkley area in California that I noticed the Mentzer version of Basic D&D over at the Half Price Books on Shattuck for $6 total for both. Looked like the books were in good shape. Would have picked them up, but I recently grabbed them elsewhere.
|
ExTSR
|
Immortals is usually the one that goes sky-high -- whether or not the box is included.
Go figure. 
|
Rafael
|
I loved the Red Box, but never got my own copy of it, except in PDF form - via SVGames, I believe...
But Glgnfz is right, Frank - Mentzer D&D IS German D&D. Almost everyone here started with it, especially since the AD&D 1e material basically flopped due to bad translations and support. You should really come and visit some time - my fellow old FLGS patron would get the shock of his life... 
|
Glgnfz
|
do you want to have a red box?!? i've got 15! (really)
|
Cab
|
I should think that the sheer number of red box (Franks edition) basic rules printed would mean that the price should remain quite low for a very long time. Immortals rules were never so popular at the time (I remember a branch of a big toy shop had some in stock for years, never managed to shrink it) which would presumably make it more scarce now than any of the other boxed sets. Hence the higher price you pay for it now.
|
Rafael
|
| Glgnfz wrote: | | i've got 15! (really) |
 15!? *Fades...* What do you want for one? And, most importantly: How could you gather so many? 
|
Cab
|
| Rafael wrote: | | Glgnfz wrote: | | i've got 15! (really) |
15!? *Fades...* What do you want for one? And, most importantly: How could you gather so many? |
And almost as importantly, why do you have 15?
|
Glgnfz
|
no idea! ... and it's a question my wife has asked me a few times, too!
most of them were bought on ebay and i found nice things in there that i could sell for more than i had paid for the whole box - so i just kept the box.
|
Rafael
|
You are one RARE cracker... :smt002 
Hey, I have four copies of the Robin Hood Prince of Thieves DVD... And I cried when Kenshin the Wanderer died...
|
|
|
