Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and the original Basic D&D - your experiences?

[Nikosandros]

If you don't mind my asking, what is RC D&D? I've seen that mentioned a few times but don't know the reference.

It's the Rules Cyclopedia a compilation of the rules from the Basic, Expert, Companion and Master sets.

 

[Obryn]

If you don't mind my asking, what is RC D&D? I've seen that mentioned a few times but don't know the reference.

Yeah, it's Rules Cyclopedia, the BECMI compilation.

I actually prefer two of its retro clones, Dark Dungeons and Darker Dungeons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A recent comment on a blog caused me to wonder about how others perceived Basic D&D compared to AD&D back in the day.

In 1980 when I started playing, the perception I had was that Basic D&D was meant to lead into Advanced and that Advanced was obviously supposed to be the 'better' product. It was years before I realized that BECMI was running in parallel with AD&D, and I can't recall anyone ever using the Expert or later sets. Arduin though, people would go on about it, occasionally even play it - it was kinda the Pathfinder of the 80s, preferred by 0D&D fans who didn't make the switch to AD&D (of course, there was no OGL back then, so Arduin got sued out of existence).

Also, it seemed at times like it was all just D&D and could be munged together, anyway.

Of course, that was just a kid's-eye view.

 

[Stormonu]

Like many others, for a long time I had the impression you started with Basic and moved to Advanced.

However, I got started with Holmes - that was a mess of a hybrid system to hand to a 9/10-year old to learn. I really started to cut my teeth on Moldavay and begrudgingly moved to Advanced once I was able to purchase the books. I have to admit I was an early adopter of 2E - couldn't wait to get away from 1E to a "cleaned-up" system.

 

[Zardnaar]

I started with the basic red box in 1993 and the expert set. Or at least parts of them anyway. Small town New Zealand options were limited. Went to 2nd ed in 1995 and thought it was better due to the advanced in the title and things like races and classes and more spells etc.

Played BECMI again last year and some clones based off them. In hindsight it is probably the better rules system it just lacks some of the options. It is more coherent and steamlined at least with the Rules Compendium. Probably end up playing a BECMI clone again either Adventurer Conqueror King or Basic Fantasy with a skill system added to it. Or mix and match with Castles and Crusades.

Emerikol grab $10 and go and buy the Rules Compendium PDF. So hoping for a reprint of that one.

 

[Emerikol]

I think if people would read the 1e DMG and ignore all the rules it would help clarify an entire playstyle very well. I'm a "child" of Gygax philosophically on how to be a good DM.

When it comes to playstyle advice that I personally believe in, it's been pretty much down hill from the 1e DMG.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think if people would read the 1e DMG and ignore all the rules it would help clarify an entire playstyle very well. I'm a "child" of Gygax philosophically on how to be a good DM.

When it comes to playstyle advice that I personally believe in, it's been pretty much down hill from the 1e DMG.

I have found most of the DMGs to be useful and it was actually a high light of 4E. C&C has an amazing DMG (CKG whatever) and in some ways the 2nd ed DMG is better than the 1st ed one. THe 1st ed one has a certain charm to it due to Gygax's writing.

 

[Yora]

Gygax writing is the biggest problem. Either I have no idea how something is supposed to work, or I think I understand how he intends things to work, but completely disagree.
However, AD&D 1st edition is a really solid set of rules. When I read retroclones that are very close to the original, it's easy to understand and makes perfect sense. It's just his writing that is so godawful.

 

[Zardnaar]

Gygax writing is the biggest problem. Either I have no idea how something is supposed to work, or I think I understand how he intends things to work, but completely disagree.
However, AD&D 1st edition is a really solid set of rules. When I read retroclones that are very close to the original, it's easy to understand and makes perfect sense. It's just his writing that is so godawful.

His writing style ofr his fluff I find is OK, he was not so good at the actual mechanics but that is ok. I do not expect the 1st makers of a car to be able to compare with a Bugatti. Gygax more or less had to invent the genre so any screw ups he did make he more or less gets a free pass IMHO.

Some of the chuckle heads since who should have known better on the other hand...

 

[MerricB]

His writing style ofr his fluff I find is OK, he was not so good at the actual mechanics but that is ok. I do not expect the 1st makers of a car to be able to compare with a Bugatti. Gygax more or less had to invent the genre so any screw ups he did make he more or less gets a free pass IMHO.

The trouble with Gygax's work is rarely actually the mechanics - which are incredibly solid in D&D - but in his explanations of how they work.

He's fine whenever he's talking about class abilities or the like, but the moment we get to the actual processes by which D&D works, his writing is incredibly poor.