Moldvay/Cook's B/X D&D vs. Mentzer/Allston's BECM/RC D&D?

[AdmundfortGeographer]

This is really a call out to old-timers who know these things. In recent threads about the desire for rules-lite version of 3.x D&D, folks have brought up both of these two versions of D&D.

I'm probably one of the few gamers that started with AD&D1, moved to AD&D2, moved to 3.0/3.5, and then discovered the Mentzer series of Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal rules (and Aaron Allston's compilation that became the Rules Cyclopedia). I have a great appreciation for the simplification of the game that this edition of the rules implemented. So much so that I had been trying to re-engineer D20 to mimic many things in that edition, but gave up because when I got to D20 monsters it was overwhelming. At this point I'm exploring the intricacies of the old systems in greater depth and trying to house-rule in D20-isms, like D20 + modifier beats DC.

That's a huge tangent for what I was trying accomplish. My main issue is to learn just what the difference was between the two "Basic" D&D's. I ask about the difference because there seem to be folks out there making a distinction between them. Back to my question...

Could anyone who knows both systems give a detailed run down of all the differences between the two Basic D&Ds? I really want to know!

[edit]Added post icon[/edit]

Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You mean the three Basic D&D's:

Holmes
Moldvay
Mentzer

Holmes is the closest to OD&D. Moldvay is a revision of that (with some simplification of the combat and alignment system) that extended it with the Expert rules. Mentzer made it more user friendly by splitting books into Player's and DM's, and expanding beyond 14th level as was promised in the Moldvay edition. The Mentzer version eventually introduced additional class options and skills (in the Companion rulebook and beyond). All told, though, the rules are virtually indistinguishable -- they just get rearranged and polished with each revision. You could play a game with three players each using a different Basic rulebook and no one would be the wiser.

 

[Ourph]

There are really no technical differences between Moldvay Basic and Mentzer Basic. You only get into rules differences when you compare the Expert rulebooks. Most of the differences have to do with Mentzer spacing out certain class progressions to extend them into a 36 level progression. Progression was much more compact in the Cook-Expert set because leveling information ended at 14th.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Thanks both of you.

I think I left off the Holmes Basic because I didn't see anyone recommending it over the other two Basic D&Ds. Speaking of the label "Basic", for all my life simply hearing the "Basic" label applied to the whole system turned me off. When I started getting into this edition of D&D I had been calling the Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer D&D as OD&D instead. I admit, it was because I had the little flaw of pride that I didn't want to play with a "basic" set of D&D when and "advanced" D&D was available. I still feel uncomfortable referring it to "Basic" D&D because of just that, but I have heard from so many other old-timers that OD&D needs to refer to the 1974 release. Oh well.

I feel rather stupid after I actually looked at the rules these many years later. Quite a few of the concepts that D&D 3.x added were already in use in the Rules Cyclopedia and Gazetteers. I mean, the Paladin/Knight/Avenger was probably the first D&D "prestige class"!

Anyway, 'nuf of that.

Is the actual rules difference between the Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer editions is that Mentzer stretched out the abilities' powers over more levels (not including the new rules added in the Companion/Master boxes)?


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[Ourph]

Is the actual rules difference between the Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer editions is that Mentzer stretched out the abilities' powers over more levels (not including the new rules added in the Companion/Master boxes)?

Yeah. Again, the level progression in the Basic sets (lvls 1-3) are identical as far as I can remember, the only differences appear in the Expert sets. Things like thieves' abilities and spell progression increase somewhat slower in the Mentzer set because of the difference in maximum levels. I would post the exact differences, but do not have a copy of Mentzer.

 

[RFisher]

Is the actual rules difference between the Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer editions is that Mentzer stretched out the abilities' powers over more levels (not including the new rules added in the Companion/Master boxes)?

Yep. That's pretty much it.

My own opinion is that much of the extra stuff (Companion & on) doesn't look very well playtested. I really like the idea of the War Machine, e.g., but I'm not crazy about the implementation. Likewise, I think the unarmed combat rules are maybe a bit more complex than warranted.

You might want to check out the Classic D&D forum on Dragonsfoot. (Where I recently learned that there were actually two versions of the Mentzer Expert Set that varies in the progression of PC abilities!)

 

[jester47]

Also check out Castles and Crusades. Its D&D (d20) done simple.

A.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Also check out Castles and Crusades. Its D&D (d20) done simple.

I've considered it. My FLGS has a Castles and Crusades GenCon box sitting on the shelf tempting me everytime I walk in.

Thing is, I now own everything ever published for Mystara/Known World, except for maybe 3 adventures. The beauty of eBay! I really want to use those adventures badly. The scope of the effort potentially required to convert all that material into some D20-esque equivalent doesn't seem worth the effort. The easier effort to me seems to be to put in D20-isms into the Rules Cyclopedia edition...


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[RFisher]

Thing is, I now own everything ever published for Mystara/Known World, except for maybe 3 adventures. The beauty of eBay! I really want to use those adventures badly. The scope of the effort potentially required to convert all that material into some D20-esque equivalent doesn't seem worth the effort. The easier effort to me seems to be to put in D20-isms into the Rules Cyclopedia edition...

Having run stuff designed for classic D&D with C&C: Using the Mystara stuff with C&C instead of the RC is almost trivial.

Besides, if you've got everything, some of that Mystara stuff is 2e. One could argue that 2e to C&C is an easier conversion than 2e to RC.

But the real point is that RC & C&C are similar enough that it hardly warrants the term "conversion".

I'd hold out for the C&C PHB, though. (As I am, in fact, doing myself.)

On the other hand, when all is said & done, I still prefer classic D&D to C&C.

 

[diaglo]

You mean the three Basic D&D's:

Holmes
Moldvay
Mentzer

Holmes is the closest to OD&D. Moldvay is a revision of that (with some simplification of the combat and alignment system) that extended it with the Expert rules. Mentzer made it more user friendly by splitting books into Player's and DM's, and expanding beyond 14th level as was promised in the Moldvay edition. The Mentzer version eventually introduced additional class options and skills (in the Companion rulebook and beyond). All told, though, the rules are virtually indistinguishable -- they just get rearranged and polished with each revision. You could play a game with three players each using a different Basic rulebook and no one would be the wiser.

you mean the Thirteen different editions of D&D. ADnD doesn't count as D&D.


OD&D
Holmes 2edD&D
Holmes 3edD&D
yadda, yadda, yadda....