Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9525187" data-attributes="member: 6799660">To clarify my point:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There isn't technically anything called 0D&D, (or oD&D/OD&D). Those are fan-made terms. However, the generally agreed to convention is that they cover the original Dungeons and Dragons ruleset released in 1974 (including subsequent print runs through 1978), and the supplements and peripherals produced for it. This version came out in a boxed set of three books (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures). Notable to the conversation, thieves were not included in the main rulebook, and were released in Supplement I: Greyhawk. It's also notable in that some of the material in it (especially the supplements) would end up in the Advanced line, with subsequent versions of the basic/classic/non-advanced line going in a different direction. Germane to future points in this post, it was not set in the Known World (later Mystara), but in an indistinct implied setting with references to Greyhawk and Blackmoor settings (the former of which is one of those things which ended up in the Advanced line, the later of which became part of the Known World's ancient past).</li> </ul>There were subsequent releases in the basic/classic/non-advanced game line (all of which were officially named Dungeons and Dragons, same as the original):<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The 1977 version is alternatively called 'Basic,' 'B,' or 'Holmes' D&D (after the editor, re-writer, and driving force behind it, Dr. J Eric Holmes). This consisted of a single boxed set labelled the basic set, plus some adventures printed in that timeframe. Initial printings referenced it as an intro version (after level 3 switch to...) for the forthcoming Advanced line (until lawsuits which honestly need their own discussion thread), but later printings suggested switching to 0D&D -- meaning that it was an odd special case in the advanced/non-advanced dividing line.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The 1981 version is usually called 'BX,' 'B/X,' or 'Moldvay-Cook' (after Tom Moldvay, David 'Zeb' Cook, and Stephen Marsh). This was two boxed sets (another Basic set, and an Expert one), plus some adventures; and with mention in the text of plans for a Companion set (which never materialized).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The 1983-5 version usually called 'BECMI' or 'Mentzer' (for Frank Mentzer) comprising five boxed sets (basic, expert, companion, master, immortal), many modules, rules expansions (like the Gazetteers and Creature Catalog series), and eventually the Rules Cyclopedia and two new 'intro' boxed sets (covering levels 1-5).</li> </ol>There was also the 'Advanced' line, which had two "editions," and then the WotC versions which go back to not including the word 'advanced' but start counting edition numbers where AD&D left off. The result is a confusing jumble making answering the question of how many versions of D&D there have been akin to how many versions of Microsoft Windows there are, etc.Rules Cyclopedia came out in 1991, fully 17 years into the game's life. It generally has the same rules as the (first four of the) 1983 boxed sets, with minor differences here and there and some rules from expansions, etc. Like all of TSR-era D&D, there's a general level of inter-operability. However, with things like multi-classing, there are going to be differences. Certainly another place to mine ideas from.It's entirely possible. Xeroxed copies of the original edition were pretty common (even back when having access to a copy machine was pretty rare). I can imagine they stuck around.oD&D is what came before AD&D (although they coexisted in time). However D&D continued to exist in print alongside AD&D, and those later D&D versions aren't normally considered oD&D.</blockquote>

Verification