-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Retroclones
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Do I get a writer's credit for my groundbreaking OSR terminology that you utilized????
"Cloniest of the clones" was too cool a phrase to pass up! And yes, I don't see why you shouldn't get credit for it!
JeffB
Legend
"Cloniest of the clones" was too cool a phrase to pass up! And yes, I don't see why you shouldn't get credit for it!
aww jeez... I was just kidding around, but thanks Morrus
grodog
Hero
FYI Morrus, the link for OSRIC is to the Lulu POD version, which is lower quality than the Black Blade offset press version (which includes additional art, heavier paper stock, that latest errata, and a much-expanded index). It's @ OSRIC Hardback (print) > Store (and is just 80 cents more than the Lulu version ).
Would you please link to the BBP version too?
). Would you please link to the BBP version too?
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I hope this is the thread to ask: where do OD&D and BD&D split off from each other?
To be clear, I have most of the differences down pat already. I know that OD&D (Original D&D) came first, and was quickly followed by BD&D (Basic D&D). I know that both preceded 1E AD&D (First Edition AD&D).
What I'm not clear on is which product is considered the first BD&D material that broke away from OD&D, and what the exact differences between OD&D and BD&D are.
From what I can tell OD&D seems to encompass everything (including the Holmes material...I think) up until the Moldvay Basic red boxed set; that was the first BD&D product (which, with the later Expert boxed set, is usually called B/X). It was later followed (and, essentially, replaced) with the Mentzer red boxed set, which became BECMI and then the Rules Cyclopedia.
Is that about right? I'm still a bit fuzzy on the actual rules differences (e.g. didn't both treat races as classes - like, you could be a level 2 elf?) but do I have the product line distinctions right?
To be clear, I have most of the differences down pat already. I know that OD&D (Original D&D) came first, and was quickly followed by BD&D (Basic D&D). I know that both preceded 1E AD&D (First Edition AD&D).
What I'm not clear on is which product is considered the first BD&D material that broke away from OD&D, and what the exact differences between OD&D and BD&D are.
From what I can tell OD&D seems to encompass everything (including the Holmes material...I think) up until the Moldvay Basic red boxed set; that was the first BD&D product (which, with the later Expert boxed set, is usually called B/X). It was later followed (and, essentially, replaced) with the Mentzer red boxed set, which became BECMI and then the Rules Cyclopedia.
Is that about right? I'm still a bit fuzzy on the actual rules differences (e.g. didn't both treat races as classes - like, you could be a level 2 elf?) but do I have the product line distinctions right?
Last edited:
JeffB
Legend
None of them are easily pigeonholed, especially Holmes- as it is all over the place.
OD&D +supplements = foundation for AD&D. Think AD&D Lite. It has most of the classes, monsters, spells, races, and the rules supplements brought about an increased focus on thinsg like ability score bonuses. As for retroclones-S&W Complete is closest to this. S&W Core is confusing as it's mostly OD&D (original boxed set) with just some weird odds and ends from the GH supplement. S&W White box is mostly OD&D original set with some suggestions for house rules. It has much more emphasis on the D6 as a measure of HD, damage, etc. Whereas core & Complete utilize differing die types for HD, variable weapon damage, adds the thief class (Whitebox- has only Cleric, MU, and Fighter classes as well as the racial classes) etc.
HOLMES has bits from OD&D, some bits from the upcoming AD&D, and has some bits all it's own (like Dex determines initiative). You can find some detailed breakdowns of the Holmes set on the intarwebz, as well asrules expansion for those who prefer to use it for a foundation system.
The Moldvay/Cook/Marsh (MCM) Basic/Expert (BX) sets are basically just a cleaning up of those OD&D rules- but keeping options limited- races as classes, only a few races/classes. It was meant to be simple to learn, and have a wild & woolly open style game to contrast with AD&D's uniformity, structure, and complexity. IOW- it tended to capture how OD&D was played back in it's formative years before AD&D while simultaneously becoming a a complete and easy introduction to the RPG hobby. B/X covered up to level 14, and there was a promised "Companion book" for levels up to 36th that never materialised (as originally intended- see below in the BECMI section) . This is still my fave version of the game, and always will be, even though I started with OD&D + supps. LL is the clear successor here in the retro-clone market.
Frank's sets (BECMI), take the MCM sets at their core. Then clarify, and eratta some things, and expand into it's own distinct D&D line of product with the Companion set & beyond. It is different in scope than the MCM sets- there is *almost* a meta plot, as PCs are meant to eventually adventure up to the highest levels and become an immortal. In addition, The Known World-a sample sandbox game world developed for playtesting the MCM sets- transforms into a full fledged detailed campaign setting called Mystara- and IMO, loses all of it's charm in the process. In addition all sorts of add on rules not previously used in A or O D&D start to get tacked onto the system. This (the Companion set) is where I parted ways with D&D back then as it was clear they were going off in a very different direction I did not care to follow. I do not own any retroclones that are meant to to simulate these sets, so I cannot help here.
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Interesting. So it really was a quasi-setting right from the start.
Where I always thought Mystara came from someone taking the map from Isle of Dread and expanding it into a 2e setting long after the fact.
Lan-"sometimes I don't know everything; other times, I don't know anything"-efan
Achan hiArusa
Explorer
JeffB
Legend
Cannot recall if it was Zeb cook interview or Steve Marsh over on DF, or maybe even Frank. Basically the setting grew up around the rule and module (B4, X1, etc) playtests of Tom, Zeb, etc. Frank then expanded upon Karameikos a bit in his expert book, and of course it just grew from there into the Gazetteers and whatnot. Whether it still remained the in house "playtest" world after Tom left, I have no idea.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
The Known World setting wasn't given a new name until much much later, when the world had expanded coverage during the Princess Arc story line in Dragon Magazine. When the world far outside of "The Known World" region was getting filled in, it was decided that "The Known World" was an awkward name.
Mystara was chosen, justified as the Alphatian name for "Mysterious Star" as they were fleeing through the stellar void to land on the planet to colonize it.
Mystara was chosen, justified as the Alphatian name for "Mysterious Star" as they were fleeing through the stellar void to land on the planet to colonize it.
Similar Threads
