Back to the Future: OD&D or BFRPG?

[Nikosandros]

Many would argue that the fork rejoins at 3rd Edition.

I would actually argue that a new branch was born with 3rd edition. The game is, markedly different from it predecessors. I find Basic and Advanced much closer to each other than AD&D is to 3e.

 

[Nikosandros]

BFRPG has an optional rule based on a roll-high ability check; there's a table with PC level and a target number based on PC level. The roll is modified by difficulty, the PC's ability bonus, and by circumstantial bonuses or penalties.

It's not significantly different from other ability-check systems; however, it does take PC level into account.

I think that is a very good system for ability checks. In fact, I have imported it in my AD&D game.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

Seriously, the games are just so different that it's laughable to think that 3e took anything from BECMI or the Rules Cyclopedia.

I expect you'll have a laugh riot, then, if you peruse this thread. Fortunately, I also think it's laughable to feel too strongly about this evolution one way or the other. It is an academic point. While I do believe it is interesting to track similarities throughout the editions, I'm hardly prepared to get my proverbial panties in a bunch over it.

Mmm ... panties.

EDIT:

I was just re-reading it. Interesting thread, there. This balanced account is what stuck out in my memory ...

The Companion set introduced D&D's first prestige classes, and the 3rd edition skills system owes a lot more to the Cyclopedia's skill system than to AD&D's NWP. Additionally, dragons were more similar to the Companion Set's advanced dragons than to AD&D dragons with their "hit points per age category." D&D 3e also followed the basic rules in collapsing the longsword and broadsword into one weapon, not including a khopesh, and so forth.

3e monks, like RC's Mystics, have acrobatics and extra attacks per round.

The 3e combat grid is more like Basic D&D's, with the exception of using 5 foot squares and making reach a general rule.

"Max hit points at first level" is an optional rule from Basic D&D.

So many systems were similar it would be hard to trace on to the other.

Some AD&Disms that made it into 3e: the Outer Planes and the Astral Plane, larger hit dice, bonus spells for high ability scores, cover, XP costs for spells, two axis alignment, Druid wildshape, paladin base class, thief-acrobats (in 3e, most thieves are thief-acrobats), Underdark races, the elven sub-races, gnomes, separate race/class, etc.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you're not considering Labyrinth Lord from Goblinoid Games?

 

[Greylock]

I can never remember who this page belongs to, but I reference it often:

http://web.fisher.cx/robert/rpg/dnd-id/

 

[Hairfoot]

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you're not considering Labyrinth Lord from Goblinoid Games?

Indistinguishable from my Moldvay set, except for the 1st-level spell acquisition for clerics, which I snootily don't approve of. However, if I end up using the Moldvay, I'll be referring to LL for level details above 3rd.

Also, I will quit the hobby forever if someone refers to me as the "Labyrinth Lord". "Castle Keeper" was bad enough.

 

[S'mon]

BFRPG has an optional rule based on a roll-high ability check; there's a table with PC level and a target number based on PC level. The roll is modified by difficulty, the PC's ability bonus, and by circumstantial bonuses or penalties.

It's not significantly different from other ability-check systems; however, it does take PC level into account.

Thanks, I've checked it out - it basically uses d20+stat bonus + 1/2 level (since the TN goes down 1 per 2 levels) and doesn't list any circumstance mods, so it's fairly crude. I prefer my own system which for B/X is d20+(full stat-10)+Level vs a variable TN dependent on task difficulty.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I expect you'll have a laugh riot, then, if you peruse this thread. Fortunately, I also think it's laughable to feel too strongly about this evolution one way or the other. It is an academic point. While I do believe it is interesting to track similarities throughout the editions, I'm hardly prepared to get my proverbial panties in a bunch over it.

Mmm ... panties.

EDIT:

I was just re-reading it. Interesting thread, there. This balanced account is what stuck out in my memory ...

Not to confirm anyone's supposition that I have my knickers in a twist over the issue or anything, but, yeah, I do find all of that pretty hilarious. After all, a lot of it is jut plain inaccuate.

The Companion set introduced D&D's first prestige classes, and the 3rd edition skills system owes a lot more to the Cyclopedia's skill system than to AD&D's NWP. Additionally, dragons were more similar to the Companion Set's advanced dragons than to AD&D dragons with their "hit points per age category." D&D 3e also followed the basic rules in collapsing the longsword and broadsword into one weapon, not including a khopesh, and so forth.

The first prestige class was the bard, which appeared in the PHB for AD&D 1e (1978). The Companion Set didn't come out until 1983, making the D&D druid the second ever prestige class. (The third, of course, came in 1985 with Unearthed Arcana and the Thief-Acrobat, but that was another 1e AD&D book.) As for skills, this is a hoot, because we know for a fact that the 3e skill system was written from scratch for the d20 system. General Skills are nearly identical to Non-Weapon Proficiencies, and they owe their origins in the OD&D Gaz books to the AD&D 1e Survival Guides.

3e monks, like RC's Mystics, have acrobatics and extra attacks per round.

This is a weird point to make, because it's pervasive to all editions of D&D. The monk first appeared in Supplement II to OD&D, so it dates back nearly to the beigging of the game; but when it was moved into AD&D 1e, it appeared in the PHB, again in 1978. The 3e monk is a direct descendant of the AD&D 1e monk, probably via the 2e version that appeared in The Scarlet Brotherhood (the 2e version made some changes to the 1e version that made their way into 3e, like unarmed strikes only ever dealing 1 die of damage). The RC mystic (which actually comes from the 1984 D&D Masters Set) seems to have been taken straight from either OD&D or AD&D 1e, but it doesn't seem to be anything that had an impact on the 3e monk in any way. (And they all got multiple attacks!)

The same could be said for dragons and combat on grids/squares: superficial similarities, but nothing that suggests linear descent. But I know this much: no version of basic D&D ever gave max HP at 1st level! (B/X might've suggested re-rolling 1s or 2s at level one only, but I don't remember for sure.)

On the other hand, the similarities between 2e and 3e are so rampant and glaringly obvious that it would take forever to list them all. So... there you go. Shock and awe, 3rd edition came from 2nd edition.

 

[Desdichado]

Also, can anyone direct to a webpage which describes the differences between 1E editions (B/X, BECMI, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer etc.)?

You say 1e, but those are all the various B/X line. 1e usually means first edition AD&D. Which was a different game line and for all effects and purposes was an entirely different game.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Many would argue that the fork rejoins at 3rd Edition.

I would agree with this, as the last of the BECMI/Classic/Introductory line ended at the same time as AD&D 2e, and from that point on there was only D&D 3e --> D&D 3.5e. While there was a Basic set, it wasn't a separate game.