BD&D vs. AD&D

[M.L. Martin]

I view it very differently from AD&D and 3e/4e. Those editions focus on a darker worldview, where demons and cults and mad gods live. RC D&D focuses on a much more "classical" world of knights and knaves, wise old wizards and hard-drinking dwarves and mysterious elves. Its much more "The Hobbit" and less "Lord of the Rings."

I'd submit that RC D&D (and 2E AD&D) are more Tolkien/Malory/possibly Ariosto (who I only know through reputation at the moment) and 1E/3E/4E are more Howard/Moorcock/Leiber (though I also know Howard only through Solomon Kane, I've heard enough to make me confident in that judgment). If that's true, then it's no wonder I gravitate to the feel of the former.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd submit that RC D&D (and 2E AD&D) are more Tolkien/Malory/possibly Aristo (who I only know through reputation at the moment) and 1E/3E/4E are more Howard/Moorcock/Leiber (though I also know Howard only through Solomon Kane, I've heard enough to make me confident in that judgment). If that's true, then it's no wonder I gravitate to the feel of the former.

Agreed, though I found you could keep the RC/2e feel in 3e if you tried hard enough.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

AD&D.

I found BD&D fun to browse through, but never had any desire to play it, particularly.

As some one who prefers playing demi & semi human characters, and spell casters, I just found the classes, races and spell lists of Basic too limiting (particularly if you consider that when I started playing 1E, it was under the expanded options of the original UA book). There wasn't enough meat on dem bones, to suit my tastes.

Still, I do understand the joy of sitting down for a spur-of-the-moment session and taking advantage of simpler rules in the name of fun. We did that very occasionally with the OD&D books as well as Tunnels & Trolls (and the latter in particular is really a lot of fun if you suddenly get the urge for a simple, old fashioned dungeon crawl and all you've got in the house are six sided dice. Take that, you fiend!).

I would not argue, though, that BD&D may well be a more streamlined and cohesive system.

Racial Templates: Demihuman races in basic D&D

New Spells: New Spells and Dweomers

 

[diaglo]

i think you might also want to find the stuff put together by Scott Ludwig

 

[Achan hiArusa]

i think you might also want to find the stuff put together by Scott Ludwig

Linky please.

 

[WayneLigon]

Personally, I never knew of anyone to play Basic D&D after AD&D was released.

AD&D was better, but I guess it depends on your idea of what 'better' is. To me, options are 'better' and AD&D has more options than Basic. In basic I can be an Elf. All elf PCs are going to be almost exactly the same. In AD&D I can be an elf thief, and elf fighter/MU, whatever. There is more variation and within the structure of the rules set I can find a combination more suited to what I want to play.

 

[RFisher]

As some one who prefers playing demi & semi human characters, and spell casters, I just found the classes, races and spell lists of Basic too limiting (particularly if you consider that when I started playing 1E, it was under the expanded options of the original UA book). There wasn't enough meat on dem bones, to suit my tastes.

I understand that.

On the other hand, though, it can be a lot of fun to take the D&D base and build your own AD&D on it instead of just taking what TSR gave you.

I have a copy and the level limits for demihumans make more sense since nonwizards only go to 10th level and Wizards go to 16th (I don't understand why, better villans?) so an elf going to Fighter 3/Wizard 4 is not so bad.

FWIW, humans aren’t limited in level at all.

Levels: There is no theoretical limit to how high a character may progress, i.e. 20th level Lord, 20th level Wizard, etc. Distinct names have only been included for the base levels, but this does not influence progression.

There is more variation and within the structure of the rules set I can find a combination more suited to what I want to play.

With any form of D&D prior to—what? late 2e?—it’s more about finding a character within the structure presented that you want to play rather than trying to fit the character you want to play into the structure.

Which is not to disagree with your point. AD&D had options in its structure than D&D didn’t. Just making a general observation.

 

[Jack Daniel]

In basic I can be an Elf. All elf PCs are going to be almost exactly the same.

This is a good thing if you're shooting for that Tolkien/Fiest/McKiernan high fantasy mystique in your games. Not so much if you prefer your swords & sorcery to be a little pulpier. Really, another poster already said it at the top of this page: AD&D for hardcore low fantasy, D&D for through-the-roof high fantasy. This is because, in very broad terms, D&D characters get vertically *more powerful* as they gain levels, while AD&D characters gain horizontal access to *more options*.

In AD&D, high level play is definitely much easier to keep "in the dungeon," because high-level AD&D PCs aren't quite so uber. But then again, I just finished (not less than two hours ago) DMing a session of D&D, in which the PCs just crossed the threshold of 35th level. (It's been going on for a *long* time). For those of you not familiar with the scale of the game, characters typically become rulers between 9th and 15th level, and they quest for immortality between 26th and 36th (the maximum possible level). These characters are all monarchs and half an adventure away from destroying an evil artifact that's plagued them since they were Expert-level characters, and transitioning to the Immortals game. And it's STILL FUN TO DM. I've never had an AD&D or d20 game stay fun past 15th level, but Classic D&D campaigns just don't seem to want to run out of steam. That's some really impressive staying power!

 

[diaglo]

Linky please.

it is probably on pandius somewhere.

but it was iirc originally on dragonsfoot and then added to Richard Tongue's ODDities webzine. do a google search. somewhere around 2002 or so.

 

[S'mon]

I'd submit that RC D&D (and 2E AD&D) are more Tolkien/Malory/possibly Ariosto...

I like the high fantasy feel of Mentzer/Elmore era D&D a lot, and I've tried to capture it in my current 3e campaign.