Quasqueton
First Post
I, too, like Staffan's chart. Though I would posit that perhaps D&D3.x be placed coming from both AD&D2 and BECMID&D.
Quasqueton
Quasqueton
How many D&D versions have there been?
- Thread starter Arbiter of Wyrms
- Start date
rogueattorney
Adventurer
I'd say there's 10...
OD&D - the 1974 version
AD&D1
B/X D&D - 1981 version
BECMI - the Mentzer boxed sets and the RC
AD&D2
'Black Box' D&D - the 1991 'Beginners' series
3e (essentially AD&D3)
3.5
Hackmaster
Castles & Crusades
The late 70's Holmes boxed set, I wouldn't consider a seperate edition. Per some of the Dragon articles, it was considered an introduction to both OD&D and AD&D1. It really didn't stand on its own as a rule set and never received the level of support that any of the other editons I've named.
The Black Box Basic set, on the other hand, had 6 modules, a campaign setting, 3 boxed sets, and a few accessories made for it, and was generally treated quite seperately from the RC version of D&D that was out at the same time. There was even an adventure in the DM screen at the time where pc's transitioned from the Black Box rule set to the RC.
R.A.
OD&D - the 1974 version
AD&D1
B/X D&D - 1981 version
BECMI - the Mentzer boxed sets and the RC
AD&D2
'Black Box' D&D - the 1991 'Beginners' series
3e (essentially AD&D3)
3.5
Hackmaster
Castles & Crusades
The late 70's Holmes boxed set, I wouldn't consider a seperate edition. Per some of the Dragon articles, it was considered an introduction to both OD&D and AD&D1. It really didn't stand on its own as a rule set and never received the level of support that any of the other editons I've named.
The Black Box Basic set, on the other hand, had 6 modules, a campaign setting, 3 boxed sets, and a few accessories made for it, and was generally treated quite seperately from the RC version of D&D that was out at the same time. There was even an adventure in the DM screen at the time where pc's transitioned from the Black Box rule set to the RC.
R.A.
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
Yes, the Rules Cyclopedia was brilliant . . .Quasqueton said:
wingsandsword
Legend
I wouldn't call Castles and Crusades another edition of D&D.rogueattorney said:
It's a fantasy RPG derived from a heavily modified and (some would say oversimplifed) version of d20, it's not licensed to use the D&D name or specific intellectual properties (unless I really missed an announcement somewhere), it shares some common mechanics and design concepts, but so do plenty of other games out there. By this definition, Conan or Blue Rose would also count as Editions of D&D.
I know there are a lot of C&C fans on ENWorld, and it might be the thing for some people, but it's another game among many, not D&D 4e.
You also mentioned Hackmaster, which is closer, but I don't think it really counts as another edition of D&D either. It's based on the D&D rules and licensed from the D&D rules, but it doesn't call itself anything in the D&D lineage (officially, they presume you know what they are talking about), but it's a semi-parody of 1e AD&D and the rules are essentially based from that.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
wingsandsword said:
I disagree. I think the only valid argument as to why C&C and HM aren't editions of D&D are the fact that they don't have 'Dungeons & Dragons' on their front cover. While those game you mentioned, and the games that borrowed heavily from earlier editions of D&D - Gamma World, Runequest, Palladium, etc. - were trying to be new games, C&C and HM are trying to emulate certain facets of the OOP editions of D&D. They are both trying to be 'the game you grew up playing.'
Now, if "D&D is whatever the the owners of the D&D IP tell me it is" is a satisfactory answer to the question, "What is D&D?", then HM and C&C are not editions of D&D. However, in terms of form, function, and intent, HM and C&C are just as much descendants of D&D as 3e is. Perhaps even more so, since both attempt to evoke the past rather than distance themselves from it as 3e does.
R.A.
wingsandsword
Legend
That's probably why a large chunk of why some people don't see them as versions of D&D. Not everybody grew up with the old D&D box sets or OD&D. I, and most of the gamers I know, started on 2nd Edition w/ Skills & Powers (if not 3.0), and 3rd edition was a logical progression from that, not distancing itself from the past. Yes 3e was a big jump, but so was AD&D coming out and compared to OD&D, yet Diaglo is really the only voice you hear saying that AD&D 1e isn't D&D. If you look at OD&D or 1e AD&D then look at 3e, it may look like a huge non-sequitur, but the design lineage is very clear. Big steps, but each step at a time makes sense.rogueattorney said:
OD&D
AD&D 1e
Basic D&D (Parallel development)
1e Unearthed Arcana (Development onto 1e)
AD&D 2e
Rules Cyclopedia (final incarnation of Basic D&D)
Player's Option (Skills & Powers/Combat & Tactics/Spells & Magic) (Develoment onto 2e)
Alternity (Parallel development, attempt to make a D&D derived universal game, a lot of d20 proto-development here).
D&D 3e.
d20 Modern (Parallel development, much like Alternity, I expect things first created in d20 Modern, like Action Points to go core in 4e)
D&D 3.5e (development onto 3e)
Skills & Powers and Alternity were the missing links in evolution here (I'm not going to call Alternity an edition of D&D, but from a game design perspective it's fingerprints are clear).
To somebody who didn't grow up with the older versions of D&D, C&C looks like D&D with all the flexibility and useful parts stripped out and turn it into something less versatile and less functional, and less useful than any almost other RPG on the market, and is quite unrelated to what D&D is nowadays.
Similar Threads
