BD&D vs. AD&D

[Bullgrit]

With all the discussions, comparisons, and wars over the years between the new D&D system(s) and the old D&D system(s), there’s one discussion, comparison, and war that I don’t remember ever seeing.

Which do you think was the better D&D game system: Basic D&D or Advanced D&D? Why?

They were both in print/publication and play at the same time (which is unique among the numerous editions of the game), but they were distinctly different versions of the game – the makers of the game said so.

I’d be interested in reading a discussion comparing and contrasting these two editions of the game (and just these two editions). Which one do you think had the better rules, better adventure modules, better settings?

Can this discussion be had without bringing up any other edition of the game?

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

 

[thedungeondelver]

With all the discussions, comparisons, and wars over the years between the new D&D system(s) and the old D&D system(s), there’s one discussion, comparison, and war that I don’t remember ever seeing.

Which do you think was the better D&D game system: Basic D&D or Advanced D&D? Why?

They were both in print/publication and play at the same time (which is unique among the numerous editions of the game), but they were distinctly different versions of the game – the makers of the game said so.

I’d be interested in reading a discussion comparing and contrasting these two editions of the game (and just these two editions). Which one do you think had the better rules, better adventure modules, better settings?

Can this discussion be had without bringing up any other edition of the game?

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

For me, it depends on what I want out of a given D&D game. Firstly, by "Basic" D&D I assume you're referring to everything up until (and excluding) the D&D RULES CYCLOPEDIA. While a "form" of Basic, it really had a life of it's own above and beyond.

Now with that aside...

Basic D&D is, for me, good for a quick bash-up. I didn't find it as feature-rich as AD&D, despite going into the higher levels. AD&D has a lot more going for it in the module department, character classes, spells, treasures, campaign worlds and general support.

With that said, certainly, there are rules aspects of Basic D&D that are less onerous than AD&D - but as I have unwound the complexities of AD&D I have found the utility of things like spell-casting time, weapon speed, and so forth to be very handy. There are times when no, I don't want to "just handwave" things with regard to those issues. That's where for me AD&D shines.

Basic D&D is good for a quick three or four sessions every once in a blue moon, plus, as with all versions of D&D it can be mined for ideas and inspiration.

Peripherally, it and AD&D are tied for coolness of artwork; I view TSR D&D artwork from that era as all on equal footing because it was all largely from the same artists: Trampier, Otus, Dee, LaForce, Sutherland and to a lesser degree Elmore.



[/font]

 

[Wicht]

I was introduced to the game with basic using an advanced module. My first purchase was a boxed basic set. When I finally bought the advanced rules books, I never went back to basic, though I played advance using basic and expert modules. I prefered having more choices, which I felt the advanced ruleset allowed me

 

[Vorput]

Aww... a comparison thread without a poll?

 

[Voadam]

I played and enjoyed a lot of AD&D but by the end of my AD&D experiences I was seriously considering switching over to Basic for my choice of rule sets.

I prefer straightforward mechanics and the disparity of bonuses that high stats in AD&D gave (particularly for percentile strength versus say a 16 or 14 strength) started to grate on me. Similarly I wanted the simplified damage set for weapons of basic over the idiosyncratic charts of AD&D.

I liked a lot of nonweaon proficiencies that came out for AD&D but I was less happy with the proficiency system. I want fighters to be good with medieval weapons, whether it is a mace or a sword or a bow. AD&D gave penalties for non proficiency and super specialist mechanical bonuses which were not the way I wanted fighters to be.

AD&D though had switch class and multiclass mechanics which were nice as well as more class (monk, assassin, illusionist, druid, paladin, ranger, etc.) and race options (Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, Gnomes, UA races) in its favor as well as more material put out for it and that I owned. AD&D also had Demon Lords and Archdevils running around.

 

[Scribble]

I started with Basic. (The big black boxed set with the guy fighting a red dragon.) Had a ton of fun with the game, and then started playing AD&D at a hobby shop on another night. Stuff from AD&D started creeping into our basic game, and then after a while we just decided to switch.

 

[kitsune9]

With all the discussions, comparisons, and wars over the years between the new D&D system(s) and the old D&D system(s), there’s one discussion, comparison, and war that I don’t remember ever seeing.

Which do you think was the better D&D game system: Basic D&D or Advanced D&D? Why?

They were both in print/publication and play at the same time (which is unique among the numerous editions of the game), but they were distinctly different versions of the game – the makers of the game said so.

I’d be interested in reading a discussion comparing and contrasting these two editions of the game (and just these two editions). Which one do you think had the better rules, better adventure modules, better settings?

Can this discussion be had without bringing up any other edition of the game?

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

When I was a kid, I always thought of Basic D&D as the game for kids and AD&D as the game for adults. Basic D&D was fun, but the true "fun" would be with all the complexity that AD&D offered just in their PH and DMG alone. Now that I'm an adult and I look back at those systems, I just see two systems.

Nowadays, I can play either game as a one-shot with no big deal, but I haven't played Basic D&D is years and stopped playing 1e AD&D when 2nd ed came out and of course, stopped playing 2nd ed when 3.0 came out.

 

[TerraDave]

Finally! Battle is joined!

Always played AD&D...in hindsight, some B/ED&D rules were better...and plenty of people used some of them in AD&D. (or at least omitted certain AD&D rules so that there game was more like B/ED&D). But AD&D had the adventures, the options, and style. Loads of it.

 

[Remathilis]

For me, it depends on what I want out of a given D&D game. Firstly, by "Basic" D&D I assume you're referring to everything up until (and excluding) the D&D RULES CYCLOPEDIA. While a "form" of Basic, it really had a life of it's own above and beyond.

Curious, why do you exclude the Rules Cyclopedia?

 

[Betote]

I like more Basic because it's very light, very easy to fudge and very expandable (and I can use the AD&D modules with it). Advanced was better for campaign play but, as nowadays I find 3.x better than AD&D for campaign play, it has no spot on my gaming schedule.

My "D&D scale" would be 3.x > Basic > 4e > Advanced (2 >1).