The Wayfarer's Inn

Hi all,

Maybe I am outing as a n00b right now, but what are the differences between the different editions of OD&D?

Some of the feedback I got for my DF Chat Game was rather sceptical because my game will be based on the RC and not on Mentzer or M/C.

Now, from what I got from a few very quick glances at the books is that the games are still practically identical... So, is it really a problem to create one character under one set and then play it under another?

Thank you,

Rafael

Well, I don't feel like a noob, been playing AD&D for 25 years, but I guess I'm a noob when it comes to OD&D as well. In fact, I never even realized that D&D was supposed to be a separate stand alone product until recently. I always assumed it was just the earlier simpler edition.

Someone please bullet point the big differences. I agree with Rafael that on the surface the versions don't seem that dissimilar.

Part of the problem is the confusing names of the various editions and versions of D&D. Most everyone I knew considered AD&D to be the new version of D&D, with Basic D&D just an introductory product (that ushered you into AD&D). But then a new Basic and Expert D&D came out. Then An even newere Basic, Expert, etc. came out. It was at this third stage (at least to my awareness) that TSR started promoting D&D as a separate game from AD&D. And then AD&D 2nd edition came out. Then D&D 3rd edition came out (dropping Advanced from the name, but clearly being more related to AD&D than D&D). In the meantime, more introductory sets were also released.

Frank

don't worry, raf! "rc d&d" is 99.8% "mentzer d&d"! the problem for the dragonsfoot guys is just that they expect a 1974 gygyax-game, when they read "od&d chat game".

as a quick orientation: 1974 d&d is quite similar to holmes d&d.
moldvay d&d is quite similar to mentzer/rc d&d.

there are big differences between these two "groups".

... as ffilz said - holmes IS kind of an introduction to ad&d.

Thank you for the info! - But in general, the games are still basically the same, right? - I would really wonder if I had missed an entire ruleset...

Personally, I am all the Cyclopedia gamer, because this was basically the only book available when we started playing. Later changed to AD&D, but for me personally, RC is still the most comfortable way to go... In fact, I am starting develop a similar collectivist passion for RCs as Glgnfz for the Red Boxes.

oh! how many have you got? they usually don't fetch too much on german ebay, i think i had to sell my extra copy for €9.99.

Just two... I am looking for mint or near mint copies, and those are very hard to find at a reasonable prize... Now, I want to get like at least five copies more...

The RC included most of the Mentzer rules, but also added a few extra options like General Skills and allowing Mystics as PCs (which was suggested in Mentzer). They left out a few things as well such as Jousting rules and changed charisma so it followed the same adjustment rules as the other stats.

Other than that you have previous rulesets:

OD&D (Gygax/Arneson)
Holmes
BX D&D (Cook/Moldway)
Mentzer/RC+

Basically each edition builds on the previous, but adds layers of rules. Mentzer's is the first ruleset that allows characters to advance to 36th level (and beyond). Holmes seems to have been an attempt to make OD&D closer to AD&D as it has both alignment axis and no race classes. B/X is a clear predecessor to Mentzer, though a few details are different and you cannot advance beyond 14th(?) level.

OD&D, as in Gygax and Arneson's rpg is much more rules lite and is the predecessor of both the Classic and Advanced line. It also had rather strange rules like allowing Elves to switch class between fighter and M-U between each adventure rather than combine the two as in Mentzer's rules.

Havard