Basic D&D rides again!

[jrients]

Exactly, sometimes I wonder if my whole RPG experience is wildly different from the norm. I and EVERYONE I know who games started around 10-12 with the Red Box that had the Elmore cover. Nobody dived right into AD&D, or even knew about it.

My original gaming crew was much the same way, pretty much the same age but with the earlier Erol Otus-covered set (the aforementioned Moldvay-edited rules). I've met a lot of other people who've started out with one or another Basic Set.

 

[Dogbrain]

So what are people talking about here? Are they talking about the Basic Set D&D or the Original D&D? The Basic Set was not the original, by any stretch of the imagination. I own a copy of the original set, which consists of three small booklets: "Men and Magic", "Monsters and Treasure", and "The Wilderness Adventure". It made frequent references to the old Chainmail miniatures rules and presumed you owned an Avalon Hill game to use as your outdoor maps. The only available character classes were Fighting Men, Magic Users, Clerics, Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits (yes, HOBBITS, not "Halflings"). This was followed by Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods, Demigods, & Heroes.

 

[jrients]

So what are people talking about here?

I was referring to the 1981 D&D Basic Set, edited by Tom Moldvay, cover by Erol Otus. FtM! mentioned the 1983 D&D Basic Set, edited by Frank Mentzer, cover by Larry Elmore. Unfortunately, a large portion of the fanbase (consisting mainly of Mystara-philes, I believe) refers to the 83 Basic Rules and the follow-up Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals as OD&D, despite the confusion this causes with the Little Beige Books.

 

[WizarDru]

I was referring to the 1981 D&D Basic Set, edited by Tom Moldvay, cover by Erol Otus. FtM! mentioned the 1983 D&D Basic Set, edited by Frank Mentzer, cover by Larry Elmore. Unfortunately, a large portion of the fanbase (consisting mainly of Mystara-philes, I believe) refers to the 83 Basic Rules and the follow-up Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals as OD&D, despite the confusion this causes with the Little Beige Books.

Well, that'd be news to me. Everyone I've met considers Basic D&D to be the box set with either the Otus or Elmore covers, usually referring to either the Blue Box or the Red Box from 80/81. When I started in 1980, we didn't even know OD&D existed, but I saw AD&D in the bookstores. Prior to the last few years, I mostly heard it refered to as 'old' D&D or 'the tan books'. Mind you, OD&D has more in common with Basic than Advanced, IMHO.

I don't think anyone was trying to represent BD&D as the original...just the first game that they'd played, and the first one to present a boxed set intended specifically for new gamers and beginners. WotC themselves describes this new game as a new 'Red Box' release, as they know what image that evokes with most of us. Remember, OD&D didn't exactly have a huge print run, by any imagination.

 

[jmucchiello]

I and EVERYONE I know who games started around 10-12 with the Red Box that had the Elmore cover. Nobody dived right into AD&D, or even knew about it.

Well, I differ here. I knew about AD&D. So did my mother. She said, "No if I buy you this boxset, you'll want all of those hardback books." And I said, "No, they're two different games. I won't need those books." Maybe a year later, I gave up on waiting for the Companion book to come out. (I've never seen a copy of it, no store ordered in my area.) I read about so many cool AD&D titles in Dragon I fulfilled mother's prophesy and bought all three hardbacks and then the UA as soon as it came out.

Moral: It's always fun to be able to laugh and say "yep, you did" when someone else says, "I told you so."

 

[qstor]

I think its a pretty cool idea. Like mentioned before might bring more new blood to D&D.

Mike

 

[Altalazar]

I think its a pretty cool idea. Like mentioned before might bring more new blood to D&D.

Mike

I agree - and now that we've seen the little blurb from the Catalog, it sounds like it is what I hoped it would be - an abbreviated set of 3.5 rules - such that it will be fully compatible with full 3.5 - it just won't list all of the options.

So it keeps it simple for new players, but doesn't force them to toss out what they build if they go get the full books.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

It's not complex. That is an illusion.

Every time I hear someone tell me how simple the 3.0/3.5 system is, I wonder why it then takes 1,000 pages to explain it?

The answer, of course, is that while most of the concepts are simple, the shear volume of details, options, exceptions, etc. can be overwhelming. If WOTC can keep those core concepts, but cut out a lot of the minutia, more power to them. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

[Corinth]

Every time I hear someone tell me how simple the 3.0/3.5 system is, I wonder why it then takes 1,000 pages to explain it?

The answer, of course, is that while most of the concepts are simple, the shear volume of details, options, exceptions, etc. can be overwhelming. If WOTC can keep those core concepts, but cut out a lot of the minutia, more power to them. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

The rulebooks are reference manuals. You're suppossed to look things up as the need arises. Learning the rules themselves isn't as hard as it seems, since the most common rules used are also the most basic ones; thus I see no need for a basic set. WOTC's take on the issue may well be worth the effort, but I doubt it.

 

[Altalazar]

Yes, the rules are, at their core, simple. If you can simplify character creation, really the only person who needs to know much is the DM. Because the players can just describe what they are trying to do and the DM can then just say "roll d20 against your X-skill."