• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

If you were to play a version of pre-3.0 D&D, which would it be?

If you were to play a version of pre-3.0 D&D, which would it be?

  • Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D

    Votes: 45 17.9%
  • AD&D 1e

    Votes: 81 32.3%
  • AD&D 2e

    Votes: 56 22.3%
  • Rules Compendium D&D

    Votes: 39 15.5%
  • Sorry--I wouldn't play *any* of the above versions

    Votes: 30 12.0%

Sejs

First Post
I could do 2nd ed and be fine with it.

I don't sport a big nostalgic hardon for 1st ed, as seems seasonal. I mean I could play it, but it wouldn't be my first choice. I'd probably pick up Gurps or Shadowrun before I'd hunker down and start drawing up a character concept.

But if were 1e or nothing, sure I could play and be happy with it. Better to game than not. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Odhanan

Adventurer
I'd play any of the pre-2E rulesets in a heartbeat, but the one I'd choose over the others would be Rules Cyclopedia, I think.
 



Lord Zardoz

Explorer
2nd Edition

If I was not going to play 3rd, I would play 2nd edition.

Mostly because I already have the books I need to run that.

END COMMUNICATION
 


dcas

First Post
Odhanan said:
I'd play any of the pre-2E rulesets in a heartbeat, but the one I'd choose over the others would be Rules Cyclopedia, I think.

But is the RC pre- or post-2e? I don't rightly remember.

I like the Rules Cyclopedia all right, but I'm not crazy about the PC levels going up to 36 (and thief skills adjusted accordingly). I'd prefer a lower max. level, such as Expert's 14. Incidentally, I think that one can make a perfectly playable game out of Holmes Basic + Cook Expert.
 

RFisher

Explorer
As it happened, I could choose & I did choose B/X.

jester47 said:
what makes M/C Bas/Ex different from the later B/X/C/M

The 1983 Basic Set is essentially the same rules as the 1981 Basic Set, just organized differently. Some people think the 1983 Basic Set is the best for beginners because it can teach anyone how to play the game. I, however, doubt whether anyone who can't figure it out from the 1981 Basic Set is going to stick with the game very long. Some people find the layout of the 1981 Basic Set makes it easier to use as a reference once you've learned the game.

Early printings of the 1983 Expert Set were essentially the same as the 1981 Expert Set, but with some expansion to the DM section. Later printings, however, modified the progressions (thief skills, spells per day, &c.) in order to "make room" for levels up to 36. See, in the 1981 (& early 1983) Expert Set, PCs were pretty much "maxed out" by 14th level.

A bit of a side rant: Despite conventional wisdom--you can play to any arbitrary level with the 1981 Expert Set. It gives you the XP/level to use past 14th, the hp progression, the "to hit" progression, & the saving throw progression. It has some suggestions for new abilities the DM might work up, but you can ignore them. The only thing you are really missing are the spells/day charts & higher level spells, but the group's creativity could make short work of that & really make the game the group's own. It does mention the 36th level limit, but that is easily ignored.

(BTW, I know at least one person who makes the same sort of argument--which I could support--about the Holmes Basic Set. He didn't really have a choice, though, because he didn't have access to anything else when he first started!)

Anyway, since I've never gotten a PC above 9th level or so, I don't see much reason in delaying gratification. Let them max out around 14th level. I've had fun in games that had virtually no character advancement. Besides, I envision 14th level PCs being more concerned with politics & such rather than dungeon crawling. But that's just me.

The later sets added various optional systems--general skills, weapon mastery, unarmed combat, the war machine, more weapons, more armor, more spells, more monsters, &c. I personally find much of that stuff good ideas but poorly playtested or simply redundant/extraneous. Choice bits I'm happy to import into a B/X game.

Hope that helps.
 



Remove ads

Top