Moldvay vs. Mentzer... FIGHT!

[Wik]

Which set was "better" - the Basic D&D Moldvay set (the one that you could put in your binder, which came in one single book) or the later set done by Frank Mentzer (the one that had a Player's book and a Dm's book - "read me next!") with the fighter going after a red dragon?

I'm sure someone will post pictures soon.

So, which was better? Which is better presented? Which is better to play? (the rules are only SLIGHTLY different, so it's more a preference than anything else). What were the differences? And so on, and so forth.

I ask because I just bought a copy of both - I've had a crappy version of Mentzer for years (which I've always loved) but finally have a full set of the "red box" Mentzer stuff. This is my first look at Moldvay, and there are parts I like (the dungeon in the back) and parts that are a bit weird (a dagger and a two-handed sword both do 1d6 damage). I'm leaning towards Mentzer overall... but Moldvay has a certain charm to it.

 

[Mark]

I always enjoy examples in rules so the dungeon in the back was a big plus in the early D&D books.

 

[paigeoliver]

Mentzer is better if for nothing else than that was the later ruleset and the Rules Cyclopedia used Mentzer rules, as did almost everything else (and it was available for about 5 times as long).

 

[rogueattorney]

The rules differences between the two basic sets are completely negligible. Many sections of the Moldvay rules are copied word-for-word in the Mentzer rules.

The presentation between the two is radically different. I prefer Moldvay's more concise, traditional, straight-forward presentation. It's easier to reference in game play. Mentzer's tutorial style of presentation, while nice for a first-time learner, makes using the rules as a reference harder and doubles the page count of the rules.

I also much prefer the pot-purri of Otus/Willingham/Roslof/DSL/Dee strangeness to Elmore's fantasy Norman Rockwell art.

As the actual rules are essentially identical, whether you use one or the other isn't going to make much difference.

There are some significant differences between the 1981 and 1983 Expert rule books, however. The 1983 rulebook is geared toward characters proceeding on towards levels in the 20's and 30's, while the 1981 rulebook basically tops out player powers - saving throws, character abilities, spells, etc. - in the teens. As one who never got a game much past 15th level, the 1981 scale makes more sense to me.

EDIT - Also, I should add, the 1981 boxed set came with B2 Keep on the Borderland, while the 1983 boxed set, with its expanded page count, did not. To me, that makes the 1981 set much superior to the 1983 set in terms of game value. Curiously, both the 1981 and 1983 Expert sets contained X1 Isle of Dread.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

While I think the Mentzer sets were overall better as far as rules, the Moldvay is by far (IMHO) the best, most concise and easiest to learn presentation of the D&D rules (any edition) ever published.

 

[S'mon]

They're both equally awesome in their own ways?

Edit: If I'm thinking Dragonlancey high fantasy with hot chicks I'll go to Mentzer, with its Elmore art. For weird spaced-out dungeoneering with cool chicks (Ironwolf!) , I'll go Moldvay with the Otus art.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Interesting question, especially since it's only targeting the basic set, and not the basic/expert combination.

I favor the Moldvay/Cook basic set. I prefer its organization, its art, and find it easier to reference in play. However, I think the Mentzer set is better for someone completely new to FRPGs, especially if they're going to learn the game, themselves (rather than you teaching them). Of course, that advantage is largely negated if you're going to be teaching them by running a game for them.

On the 1d6 damage thing, both Basic sets have 1d6 damage for all melee weapons as the default rule, and variable damage as the optional rule. In the Moldvay/Cook version, variable weapon damage is on pg B27: a dagger does 1d4 and a 2-handed sword does 1d10.

When the later sets (Expert, etc.) are thrown into the mix, my preference for Moldvay/Cook/Marsh becomes even more decisive. I prefer the scale presented in the 1981 Basic and Expert sets, without the addition of the Companion, Masters, and Immortals sets. (And yes, I know a Companion set was planned and mentioned, even in the 1981 rules; that doesn't change my opinion of the 1981 B/X combination as it exists.)

 

[Jason Bulmahn]

Mentzer's red box was the first game I ever played.. and it killed my first character. Despite this harsh treatment (damn you yellow mold covered dinner plates), I still gave him my vote.

That and he said he really liked what I was doing with Pathfinder when I bumped into him at GenCon. One of the highlights of the show..

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

 

[Wik]

Interesting question, especially since it's only targeting the basic set, and not the basic/expert combination.

Mostly because I didn't know there was a Moldvay expert.

D'oh.

 

[Keldryn]

I prefer the Mentzer sets, probably because that was what I learned with.

One of my friends who started playing at the same time picked up a 1981 basic set, and my first reactions were "why on earth did somebody wreck their book with a 3-hole punch?" and "wow, this has crappy art."

I have since grown out of the reverence for Elmore, Easley, and Caldwell art, but their artwork defined my early D&D experiences, and I was very disappointed with the artwork in the early AD&D books and modules that I eventually obtained at a later date.

The Mentzer set was, I think, a better instruction manual on how to play the game and wasn't spectacular as a reference guide, but that never seemed to bother us at the time. I also liked having the DM's guide as a distinct book, so that I could keep it away from my nosy players (hey, I was 12).