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

Baumi said:
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?

Mentzer's edition had a longer progression track and more options. While Moldvay ran to level 14, Mentzer went out to level 36 and introduced weapon mastery, siege warfare, immortals, and a boatload of other options. My preference for Moldvay is simple that Mentzer feels more like AD&D to me as it goes along, courtesy of the many new options. But both are very good systems, and they are pretty similar up through the expert boxes.

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

I have two reasons. First, the only reason I see to play one of the older editions is to run a game that is drastically more simple than 3e. OD&D is pretty simple, but becomes more and more complex with the supplements, which I think kills some of its charm.

The second reason for my preference sans supplements is because the original manuals themselves are difficult to navigate through. Adding the supplements makes it even harder. If WotC ever put together a nostalgia product that combined oD&D and the supplements along with a thorough index, I might change my mind.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

OD&D without supplements is the ideal "semi-freeform make it up as you go along" game, which gives you just enough guidance to set a baseline and some assumptions about what the game-world is like but otherwise leaves everything up to the individual players and referee. On the downside, this version is almost impossible to comprehend if you don't have a firm grounding in later versions of D&D (or don't care about later versions of D&D and are willing to make it up as you go along and not care if you're consistent with the actual intent of the rules which, in this edition, is a perfectly valid approach)

OD&D with supplements is pretty much 1E AD&D with less organization and worse balance. Bits and pieces from the supplements (an/or The Strategic Review and The Dragon) can enhance the game or help focus it in a particular direction, but (IMO at least) if you're going to use all (or even most) of the material from the supplements you might as well just play 1E AD&D

The Holmes (1977-78) Basic Set is wacky -- the rules are kinda OD&D, kinda 1E AD&D, and kinda their own thing, and since they only cover levels 1-3 you're eventually going to have to do so some kind of conversion. That said, it's still my favorite introductory version of the game, which IMO captures the spirit and feel of what I like about D&D better than any of the later Basic Sets (part of this is undoubtedly the Sutherland, Wham, and Trampier art -- my favorite era of TSR/D&D art)

The Moldvay (1981) Basic Set and Cook/Marsh (1981) Expert Set are the most concise presentation the rules have ever had, but IMO they're ironically almost too slick -- this is the version that begins to feel mechanical and formulaic to me, like the limitless possibilities of the original game have been narrowed down and constrained. With the original game I feel like I can do anything (as player or referee); with this version I feel like I can do "anything" (provided it fits within certain formulae and parameters). That said, for casual and one-off play this version is hard to beat; this is, as its partisans on dragonsfoot have described it, the "sit your butt down and start playing" edition.

The Mentzer (1983) Basic & Expert sets are essentially (~95%) the same rules as the above, but reorganized to make introducing the game to absolute novices easier, and to tone down progressions (spells, saving throws, and thief skills) at the higher Expert levels to allow room for growth in the Companion and Master sets. As a kid in the 80s, my friends and I used these two versions interchangeably, never realizing there were any differences between them besides the artwork.

The Rules Cyclopedia compiles all 4 Mentzer sets (Basic-Master) plus the General Skills rules from GAZ1 and some new stuff, into a single book, without all the handholding advice and sample adventures and such. It's the second most concise treatment the game has ever had, losing out to the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh edition only because it's got a lot of optional stuff (General Skills, Weapon Mastery, etc.) and high level stuff (since the book covers all the way to level 36) cluttering up the otherwise simple core rules. (It's perhaps also worth mentioning that I don't particularly like the optional and high-level stuff.)
 


T. Foster said:
The Moldvay (1981) Basic Set and Cook/Marsh (1981) Expert Set are the most concise presentation the rules have ever had, but IMO they're ironically almost too slick -- this is the version that begins to feel mechanical and formulaic to me, like the limitless possibilities of the original game have been narrowed down and constrained. With the original game I feel like I can do anything (as player or referee); with this version I feel like I can do "anything" (provided it fits within certain formulae and parameters). That said, for casual and one-off play this version is hard to beat; this is, as its partisans on dragonsfoot have described it, the "sit your butt down and start playing" edition.

I prefer the Moldvay/Cook sets over any other version, but I do agree with the underlined above. I think the best option is to use Moldvay/Cook as the core rules, but the DM should also have access to the original booklets + supplements (espec. Monsters & Treasure, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures and Blackmoor) for inspiration.
 

thedungeondelver said:
(Note: DO NOT attempt to use the "HPs-by-locations/hit locations/target size/etc" charts in SUPPLEMENT II: BLACKMOOR - your head may explode.)
scanners4.jpg
 

I agree with pretty much everything that T. Foster said. For a one-shot, I'd go with the B/X (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh) rules. "Sit your butt down and play" nails it.

Right now I'm running C&C, but the next time I run D&D, I want to run a house-ruled Holmes game with expanded levels. Or OD&D(1974) without supplements (the thing is, my OD&D game would look a lot like 'expanded' Holmes, anyway).
 

Baumi said:
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

They're pretty cheap on ebay. I just picked up another copy of each a while back (rule books only) for about $5.00 each.

I love this edition and am preparing to run a one-shot in about a month with them.
 

Ourph said:
I prefer the Moldvay/Cook sets over any other version, but I do agree with the underlined above. I think the best option is to use Moldvay/Cook as the core rules, but the DM should also have access to the original booklets + supplements (espec. Monsters & Treasure, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures and Blackmoor) for inspiration.

I agree with that - I haven't read Blackmoor, but B/X plus original-booklet M&T and U&WA as supplements is fantastic, I've done this a bit myself for my B/X pbem. I also occasionally use 1e MM monsters, or bits of monsters - eg my Ice Wolves are B/X dire wolves + a version of 1e MM Winter Wolves breath weapon.
 

I know I'm a minority here, but I prefer the Mentzer sets. Maybe because those were the sets that I played first, and stayed with due to the simplicity (missing ADnD 1st edition and almost missing the 2nd edition). I liked the option for weapon specialization, siege warfare, rules for immortals and artifacts because I felt that I could use these to further the role-playing experience. The siege warfare encouraged me to involve my characters in the politics in nation states, since I eventually would want them to raise or lead armies against enemy countries and become members of the nobility. The other options required great quests, and every character wanted to be a weapon specialist for example. Therefore, most had to track down the greatest teachers around and try to convince those teachers to instruct them. The rules were still so flexible that I felt that I could stat the teachers or siege weapons or nations however I wished. Great fun.
 

Can I throw a vote toward the Rules Cyclopedia? All the goodness of BECMI (minus I) in a easy to read, well edited package. Four classes (fighter, magic user, cleric, thief), three race/classes (elf, dwarf, halfling), and two optionals (druid, mystic). Optional general skills and weapon mastery, dominion rules, a campaign setting, and it makes its own gravy.

and its pretty cheap on Ebay!
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top