Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Keldryn" data-source="post: 6361246" data-attributes="member: 11999"><p>The "path" from the Basic Set was to the Expert Set, not AD&D. My Basic Set made it explicitly clear that AD&D was a separate game and product line that was "incompatible" with D&D. The AD&D books had a completely different look at format than the D&D sets. The "natural" progression would be to go from Set 1 to Set 2 to Set 3 and so on. </p><p></p><p>The D&D product line of the 80s and early 90s was a complete game in and of itself (either B/X, BECMI sets 1-5, or the Rules Cyclopedia). Unlike the Holmes Basic Set (1977), it was not assumed that players would "move on" to AD&D. This line also received extensive support through adventures, accessories, and campaign setting supplements. </p><p></p><p>I don't have any data on how many players started with the Set 1: Basic Rules and then progressed to AD&D versus how many progressed to Set 2: Expert Rules. I suspect that if the new players knew people who were already playing AD&D, then they most likely joined up with them and switched over to AD&D. For a kid who just finished running some friends through the adventure in the Basic Set and was thirsting for more, the Expert Set would probably have been his next purchase.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, because you totally aren't reasoning from your own experiences.</p><p></p><p>But in case it needs clarification:</p><p></p><p>"And there are a lot of us" <em>who started with B/X or BECMI D&D</em>.</p><p></p><p>My statement that those of us who started with B/X or BECMI D&D "are probably more likely to have taken the same approach with AD&D" is based on the fact that the game books and the box itself stress that the action takes place entirely in your imagination and that no gameboard is required. The Basic Set books go to great lengths to emphasize the "theater of the mind" style of play. How would this not have an influence on players who later start playing the AD&D game?</p><p></p><p>I never claimed the existence of some imaginary AD&D that didn't have any wargaming-style mechanics. I am stating that players who started with B(X)ECMI D&D were probably more likely <em>than players who started with Chainmail/OD&D/AD&D</em> to approach AD&D with that "theater of the mind" perspective and simplify or just plain ignore many of those wargaming-style mechanics. </p><p></p><p>And I think that is a reasonable assumption. AD&D 1e had a lot of overly complex and poorly-explained rules that many hardcore fans on the Internet admit that they never bothered with. Despite warnings of "incompatibility," it was quite easy to use AD&D classes, spells, monsters, and magic items with the more streamlined rules of BECMI D&D.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's a starter set to cover levels 1-5, titled "The New, Easy-to-Master Dungeons & Dragons Game." It came in a box about the same size as any board game you'd find in a toy or department store. The set was designed and sold as a lead-in to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia (which was a compilation of Sets 1 to 4 and some rules from Gazetteer supplements), which was not grid dependent in the least. </p><p></p><p>This starter set was designed to play more like a board game in order to make it easier to learn, and I suspect also to make it look more like a typical game so that parents would be more likely to buy it for their kids. It had exactly the same combat rules as the '81 and '83 Basic Sets, which meant that the grid was entirely unnecessary.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Keldryn, post: 6361246, member: 11999"] The "path" from the Basic Set was to the Expert Set, not AD&D. My Basic Set made it explicitly clear that AD&D was a separate game and product line that was "incompatible" with D&D. The AD&D books had a completely different look at format than the D&D sets. The "natural" progression would be to go from Set 1 to Set 2 to Set 3 and so on. The D&D product line of the 80s and early 90s was a complete game in and of itself (either B/X, BECMI sets 1-5, or the Rules Cyclopedia). Unlike the Holmes Basic Set (1977), it was not assumed that players would "move on" to AD&D. This line also received extensive support through adventures, accessories, and campaign setting supplements. I don't have any data on how many players started with the Set 1: Basic Rules and then progressed to AD&D versus how many progressed to Set 2: Expert Rules. I suspect that if the new players knew people who were already playing AD&D, then they most likely joined up with them and switched over to AD&D. For a kid who just finished running some friends through the adventure in the Basic Set and was thirsting for more, the Expert Set would probably have been his next purchase. Right, because you totally aren't reasoning from your own experiences. But in case it needs clarification: "And there are a lot of us" [I]who started with B/X or BECMI D&D[/I]. My statement that those of us who started with B/X or BECMI D&D "are probably more likely to have taken the same approach with AD&D" is based on the fact that the game books and the box itself stress that the action takes place entirely in your imagination and that no gameboard is required. The Basic Set books go to great lengths to emphasize the "theater of the mind" style of play. How would this not have an influence on players who later start playing the AD&D game? I never claimed the existence of some imaginary AD&D that didn't have any wargaming-style mechanics. I am stating that players who started with B(X)ECMI D&D were probably more likely [I]than players who started with Chainmail/OD&D/AD&D[/I] to approach AD&D with that "theater of the mind" perspective and simplify or just plain ignore many of those wargaming-style mechanics. And I think that is a reasonable assumption. AD&D 1e had a lot of overly complex and poorly-explained rules that many hardcore fans on the Internet admit that they never bothered with. Despite warnings of "incompatibility," it was quite easy to use AD&D classes, spells, monsters, and magic items with the more streamlined rules of BECMI D&D. It's a starter set to cover levels 1-5, titled "The New, Easy-to-Master Dungeons & Dragons Game." It came in a box about the same size as any board game you'd find in a toy or department store. The set was designed and sold as a lead-in to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia (which was a compilation of Sets 1 to 4 and some rules from Gazetteer supplements), which was not grid dependent in the least. This starter set was designed to play more like a board game in order to make it easier to learn, and I suspect also to make it look more like a typical game so that parents would be more likely to buy it for their kids. It had exactly the same combat rules as the '81 and '83 Basic Sets, which meant that the grid was entirely unnecessary. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?
Top