OD&D Editions ... which one is the best?

I'd cast my vote for Moldvay/Cook. The 1974 boxed set is a nightmare to go through as far as editing goes, though if you go with that I'd recommend using it without supplements (my preference only). The Mentzer BECMI rules make for a solid game, but has a lot of extraneous stuff added on that I think takes away from the simplicity and appeal of the game. The Rules Cyclopedia (which is a compilation of the Mentzer rules, really) is a great resource, but has a lot of optional rules that usually turn into wasted space for me. Moldvay/Cook is great for fast, no fringes gaming, if that's what you want.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm doing a retro one-shot in a few weeks, and I'm definitely going with Moldvay/Cook. It's everything that D&D should be distilled into a quick and simple package. And while the rules don't cover everything, keeping some 3rd Edition core priciples in mind will come in really handy for adjudicating stuff that's not covered in the booklets.
 

BTW I never played Moldvay/Cook when it came out, I ran 1e all through the '80s. Family friends gave me a Moldvay Basic they found in a jumble sale, but I paid it little heed. Then last year I was burned out on 3e. I looked at the Rules Cyclopedia - nice, but too many accretions (Mystics, Weapon Mastery, NPC being level 12+1d20). Then I looked seriously at Moldvay - wow! It's so clear, so well written, so jam packed with D&D goodness! I got a Cook/Marsh Expert set off Ebay, and am having a fantastic time now running a B/X PBEM that's been going great for a long time now. It has exactly the levels of magic (spell levels 1-6), PC power (levels 1-14) and monster power (well balanced vs PCs) that I want in a D&D game, and adjudication is beautifully simple.
 

S'mon said:
Yes - this is Moldvay 1981 Basic, the blue Expert book for this is by Cook & Marsh. IMO this is the best version of classic D&D for an experienced GM. Mentzer Basic is best for a complete neophyte.

I agree. While I would use the Rules Cyclopedia if I were going for a full campaign for a one-shot the Moldvay basic Cook & March Expert rules are what I remember best about my early days of D&D and what I would use in this case. Sadly I have only ever read one book of the 1974 version of D&D and copies of it are extremely expensive to get nowadays.
 

You can actually use the Holmes Basic with Cook & Marsh Expert if you're inclined and you already have it lying around.

Original D&D, even the "Original Collectors' Edition" (OCE), tends to be expensive. Whereas Holmes, Molday, Cook, and Mentzer tend not to be. The Rules Cyclopedia can also be hard to find.
 

Definitely Moldvay/Cook. I just love that set. Those sets. Whatever. :)

I'm glad I didn't start the game with Holmes. I don't know if I'd had survived the lack of understandable rules.

Cheers!
 

I like the organization of Moldvay/Cook best, but there were rules tweaks in Mentzer that I prefer.

Also, Elmore's fantastic art in Mentzer is much better than the stuff in Moldvay, which looks like the scribblings of a 4 year old by comparison.
 

Damn, why does everyone prefer Moldvay ... thats the only Edition that I don't have and don't know how to get (any idea besides Ebay?). :P

Anyway, whats are the Rule-differences between Moldvay and Menzer?

And why does everyone seem to like the 74-er Edition without Supplements more than with them?
 


DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (1974) + supplements.

(Note: DO NOT attempt to use the "HPs-by-locations/hit locations/target size/etc" charts in SUPPLEMENT II: BLACKMOOR - your head may explode.)
 

Baumi said:
And why does everyone seem to like the 74-er Edition without Supplements more than with them?
this is where the stat race/ power mungering began.

Supplement I begat powergamers in D&D.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top