D+D was designed from miniature war games and has been paying for it, right until they tried to make it World of Dicecraft. Then they just swapped one mistake for another.

Dragonlance 5th Age was the only truly inspired rule set TSR made (and the last), after that Wizards bought them out.

I'm starting to get into gurps, I love the flexibility in world sandboxing, you can make the rules as lite or as complex/crunchy as you want, and the world/setting books all seem to kick ass.

I just learned that 5th edition will probably get a polish edition this year. Despite my misgivings I might actually give it a shot, depending on price point. I know I initially rejected it, but it's likely that if I'm ever to play again I'll have to get together a new group, and I might need something newbie friendly for that, so a lot of what was a downside of 5e before might be an upside now. I just wish the essential rules for D&D came in one book not three. It always felt like a cashgrab for me, considering most systems manage it in one book.

Which makes "switching" to a new edition all the harder. You've got all these books for one, you've committed so much to it, both money and time, it's rather annoying to start over. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a bit less cash-grabby than D&D, and still when I saw there's 3rd edition I looked over at my books for 2nd and was like "no thanks, I'm good".

That's kind of what annoyed me with gurps as I'm starting to love the system but it started as a set of multiple books but you got them all at once for the first two editions, third went to one big book, now 4th went back to multiple books but you have to buy seperate and they're about D&D prices. And even the pdf's of 4th edition aren't too much cheaper than physical. So I said screw it and went with 3rd as it has a shit ton more content also and is much cheaper.

In 2017 I can't cope anymore with a system like D&D 5th.

I've read the SRD and the main, basic assumptions, are always the same, disappointing ones.

Boring combat.
Boring character progression.
Boring magic system.

The concept of AC is way to outdated.
The slotted magic is nothing but boring.
The hit point mechanic is so simplistic, that brings boredom the table: hit point trade.

THe new 5e skill mechanic waterdown any skill progression.

The few intersecting pieces of 3.5 have been removed, to make 5e feel "retro" but, IMHO, just feels empty.
A book like rules cyclopedia feels so much more mature than this new edition.

Is rules cyclopedia actually a standalone edition? I thought it's more like a compendium of essential rules for easier refrence during a game.

Yes, it is.

There is also an outstanding retro-clone of the Rules Cyclopedia called Dark Dungeons: great RPG system.

Wait a second... wasn't Dark Dungeons that ridiculous "D&D players are satan worshipping cultists" comic?

No idea, but the actual game is just a slightly modified cyclopedia, as to avoid being copyright sued. But still close enough.
I also think DD takes stuff that was optional in the cyclopedia, and makes them mandatory for DD.

Don't think there is proper "optional" material in Rules Cyclopedia.

DD also fixes lots of errata that is present in the RC original rulebook.
It polishes the system (remove the THAC0 for more linear roll) and is overall very easy, without removing too much depth.

The weapons mastery system, and the skills system were both optional. I think they're both mandatory in DD. I know one of them IS mandatory just not sure on both.

Agreed.

I think we are saying the same thing, different words ;)

Agreed. :P Haven't looked at DD in quite a while as I have the drivethrurpg.com version of the cyclopedia, so had no need to look at DD in a long time.