BD&D vs. AD&D

[thedungeondelver]

Curious, why do you exclude the Rules Cyclopedia?

Essentially because one, it's not "basic" by name any longer and two, it added some things (prestige classes) that really mark a sea change for me.

Note that I don't say it isn't D&D, just not basic D&D.

Mentzer Basic, post EXPERT D&D is the same way. You get into the COMPANION, MASTERS, and IMMORTAL rulesets and things just really start to go far afield from the stock and trade definition of "basic D&D".

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I love the character creation in 3.5, and I also admire the extra flexibility and Greyhawk-inspired magic items in the two AD&D editions. But for game-play, nothing beats OD&D for me (Mentzer edition). The game just moves at a quicker pace while I also feel enboldened to use my imagination as the rules and speed are easily manipulated. Strangely enough, I'm not a huge fan of the older editions or the Rules Encyclopedia. There are some tweaks in the RC that took away from the Mentzer sets. And I like the small extras Mentzer added to the original rules, such as weapon specializations...

In fact... if someone asked nicely I might be tempted to do a first level, Mentzer red book PbP here that takes place in The Wilderlands of High Fantasy.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I think the problem is the confusion between the earlier B/X Basic and later BECMI/RC Basic. Weapon Mastery, Name Level Classes, etc. the dungeon delver has a major point, except I don't think the OP was talking about B/X.

 

[diaglo]

2edD&D was a good system to start play... aka Holmes D&D. and 3edD&D... aka Holmes D&D after an addition of a module to the boxed set.

1edADnD was too much. although it was the natural progression of what Supplement I Greyhawk (1975) had started. the switch in focus to building up your ability scores so you go more of a bonus. and the arms race it lead too. the powergamers wet dream that is D&D now.

moldvay basic and cook expert were fine too.

everything after that which Frank M touched was just 1edADnD's powergaming in a different package

 

[Remathilis]

Essentially because one, it's not "basic" by name any longer and two, it added some things (prestige classes) that really mark a sea change for me.

Note that I don't say it isn't D&D, just not basic D&D.

Mentzer Basic, post EXPERT D&D is the same way. You get into the COMPANION, MASTERS, and IMMORTAL rulesets and things just really start to go far afield from the stock and trade definition of "basic D&D".

Fair enough. For a game derived form the "basic" line of D&D, it did get remarkably complex and deep.

 

[S'mon]

I barely played BD&D, we always played 1e, but looking back on it, BX & BECMI was a far better written and better structured system, rules-wise.

 

[diaglo]

Fair enough. For a game derived form the "basic" line of D&D, it did get remarkably complex and deep.

it perpetuated what was wrong with the game.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I've played them both. I had always thought that AD&D was better for low to mid level play and that BECMID&D was better for high level play especially with Dominion Rules, War Machine, and Paths to Immortality. I never liked the race as class rules which weakened in the Gazetteer series and AD&D just had more classes, more magic items, more equipment, more spells, and more monsters (though the creatures, spells, and items unique to BECMID&D were cool). Also the Expert Rules were great for wilderness gaming and have rules in them that still have yet to be covered by any other edition (like Rivers increase or decrease daily travel by 1d6+6 miles per day when going by boat). And the weapon mastery rules kept fighters from fading into the background or becoming grogs. And when the Immortal Rules came out I replaced my AD&D gods with D&D Immortals since they were far more powerful.

 

[Bullgrit]

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

The first mention of another edition of the game came in the 6th reply. Please, folks, let's not muddy the waters by bringing in other editions in this thread. Thanks.

I don't think the OP was talking about B/X.

What makes you think this? In fact, when I think of Basic D&D, I think of the 1981 B/X duo. I actually know very little about the later versions of Basic D&D.

Bullgrit

 

[Remathilis]

What makes you think this? In fact, when I think of Basic D&D, I think of the 1981 B/X duo. I actually know very little about the later versions of Basic D&D.

BECMI is pretty much B/X, but with a level cap of 36 rather than 14. It also adds some optional sub-systems, dominion rules, immortality for super-high PCs, and a lot more monsters.

IMHO, its BD&D 2nd edition, as it is as close to B/X as 1e is to 2e.