Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Quixote" data-source="post: 4527535" data-attributes="member: 694">I don't think there's such thing as &quot;Basic D&amp;D.&quot;&nbsp; There are a number of Basic Sets, but the opposite (if you want to be oppositional) of &quot;Advanced D&amp;D&quot; is plain vanilla &quot;D&amp;D&quot; (not to be confused with the &quot;D&amp;D&quot; of 3e and 4e).&nbsp; So, yes, it's confusing, and I think the community would benefit from a streamlining of the terminology.&nbsp; Get away from labels like OD&amp;D, which some people only want to apply to the '74 game and some want to apply to everything that's not AD&amp;D.&nbsp; Get away from universally applying Basic, which can mean any of the Holmes, Molvday, Mentzer, or Denning basic sets, to say nothing of the boxed sets which came out for 2e, 3e, and now 4e.&nbsp; When somebody says &quot;Basic&quot; D&amp;D, do they mean to include Expert or Masters D&amp;D as well?&nbsp; It's a confusing name.The AD&amp;D editions are numbered.&nbsp; That provides an automatic label. The Classic D&amp;D editions aren't.&nbsp; Which means we either have to use descriptive names, the athors' names, or the years they first came out.&nbsp; I'm proposing the years of release, since it's much more consistent to write D&amp;D '74, '77, '81, '83, and '91 than it is to write Gygax/Arneson, Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer, and Denning/Allston.EDIT: And &quot;Classic&quot; isn't a label I invented.&nbsp; The dragonsfoot.org community seems to lump all the OD&amp;D editions from 1974 onward under &quot;Classic D&amp;D,&quot; at least according to the organization of their <a href="http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/" target="_blank">forums</a>.&nbsp; But the name itself comes from the <a href="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic94box.html" target="_blank">1994 rewrite of the 1991 basic set</a>.&nbsp; And it's a fine name for &quot;that which is not AD&amp;D or d20 D&amp;D.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Quixote, post: 4527535, member: 694"] I don't think there's such thing as "Basic D&D." There are a number of Basic Sets, but the opposite (if you want to be oppositional) of "Advanced D&D" is plain vanilla "D&D" (not to be confused with the "D&D" of 3e and 4e). So, yes, it's confusing, and I think the community would benefit from a streamlining of the terminology. Get away from labels like OD&D, which some people only want to apply to the '74 game and some want to apply to everything that's not AD&D. Get away from universally applying Basic, which can mean any of the Holmes, Molvday, Mentzer, or Denning basic sets, to say nothing of the boxed sets which came out for 2e, 3e, and now 4e. When somebody says "Basic" D&D, do they mean to include Expert or Masters D&D as well? It's a confusing name. The AD&D editions are numbered. That provides an automatic label. The Classic D&D editions aren't. Which means we either have to use descriptive names, the athors' names, or the years they first came out. I'm proposing the years of release, since it's much more consistent to write D&D '74, '77, '81, '83, and '91 than it is to write Gygax/Arneson, Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer, and Denning/Allston. EDIT: And "Classic" isn't a label I invented. The dragonsfoot.org community seems to lump all the OD&D editions from 1974 onward under "Classic D&D," at least according to the organization of their [URL="http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/"]forums[/URL]. But the name itself comes from the [URL="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic94box.html"]1994 rewrite of the 1991 basic set[/URL]. And it's a fine name for "that which is not AD&D or d20 D&D." [/QUOTE]

Verification