D&D General Veteran fans - did you think of Basic D&D and AD&D as completely different games?

[Paul Farquhar]

For those that say they used material interchangeably, do you mean that I could play an Elf (as in B/E elf) in an AD&D game? Or your weapons in an AD&D game all did d6 damage? What do you mean by interchangeable?

Modules, monsters. They where interchangeable. In our game we would use AD&D rules for character creation because we saw them as better - more variety, more options, more lore; and the AD&D weapon damage table, again because we considered more variety to be better. Lots of AD&D rules we didn't use though, like weapon speed factors. It was really a case of mix and match to find the desired level of complexity.

Also AD&D alignment. Because good guys weren't pro-establishment lackies.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I think that a lot of the "compatability" stuff was much more on the DM's side of things - monsters, modules, that sort of thing. It wasn't like players were making race as class characters in AD&D. But, yeah, totally agree on the mix and match stuff. I played AD&D 1e for about ten years and I can honestly say that I probably never actually played AD&D.

 

[Casimir Liber]

For those that say they used material interchangeably, do you mean that I could play an Elf (as in B/E elf) in an AD&D game? Or your weapons in an AD&D game all did d6 damage? What do you mean by interchangeable?

We used AD&D damage as soon as we had it - also AD&D character classes - a dwarf was just a dwarf fighter. Actually if I recall correctly, the premade characters in B1 all had a class and a race... (???)

Actually looks like they didn't - oh god the names on this thread bring back memories

 

[Audiomancer]

For those that say they used material interchangeably, do you mean that I could play an Elf (as in B/E elf) in an AD&D game? Or your weapons in an AD&D game all did d6 damage? What do you mean by interchangeable?

Like teitan said above, AD&D allowed more character creation options, so we instinctively concluded those rules were better and used those. If someone had wanted to be B/X Elf, we would have used F/MU multi-classing rules.

A couple of us had copies of Holmes Basic (I know I did), but “all weapons do 1d6 damage” never came up. Again, since AD&D had more weapon options, we would pick whatever path gave us more choices to play around with.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Were the games different, yes. While D&D is always fantasy characters killing things and taking their stuff; the way that's handled is very very different.

As for accessories, I always looked at it like kitbashing models. Tamiya, Ertl, Revell and Airfix were all different companies, but a 1/72 Sherman is a 1/72 Sherman... Parts is parts as it were.

 

[Cadence]

For those that say they used material interchangeably, do you mean that I could play an Elf (as in B/E elf) in an AD&D game? Or your weapons in an AD&D game all did d6 damage? What do you mean by interchangeable?

I owned B/X and my (human) cleric had the spells, weapon damage, AC I hit, advancement chart, and hp in the B/X book. When I got the PhB and got to make my next replacement character for that game, I think I made an Elf Cleric had the spells, weapon damage, AC I hit, advancement chart, and hp in the PhB (DMG for what AC I hit). I'm not sure which ruleset the DM was getting their spell damage, monster up, etc... out of.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Presumably this was the official TSR line (though I'd be interested to hear if there were contradictory statements). But is this what veteran players really assumed back in the day? A wall between Basic D&D and AD&D, with nothing meant to be used interchangeably?

I tend to see them as two attempts at the same basic formula. There are differences between BX and BE that are larger than either to AD&D (and I've always said that the biggest edition change in D&D history takes place within* oD&D)
*That's actually a huge spanner in the works of these discussions. Many versions of the game have, within each edition, radical change in the rules, structure, settings, feel, tone, and all the other distinguishing characteristics we might use.
In 1983, me and my friends had one or two sessions where the 'big kids' (10-11 year olds) let us play in their hybird (Holmes/Moldvay-Cook/AD&D/some oD&D supplements and adventures) game. We then started our own group, and depending on when each of us saved enough allowance, had a birthday, or begged our folks to get us a set, got BX, first printing BE (which had some stuff that was later changed), or 2nd+ printing BE. We noticed right away that they were different, but (given that getting the same books for everyone was a non-starter) made the whole thing work.

They were not totally interchangeable, but you could adjust for them on the fly as a 10 year old.

In the end, it is a matter of perspective and opinion.

That's about where I stand too, if the youngest (we did it at 8) of gamers could recognize them as having differences, but also be able to make them work, then their status as wholly different games is pretty ambiguous.

They also maintained it because it sold EXTREMELY well worldwide.

Yep. A lot of us in the USA did not realize that basic/classic outsold AD&D abroad. Given that, you sure would have thought that they would have put more effort into it here (I guess all the gazetteers and stuff would be a lot of effort for something they only had to show they were still publishing).

For those that say they used material interchangeably, do you mean that I could play an Elf (as in B/E elf) in an AD&D game? Or your weapons in an AD&D game all did d6 damage? What do you mean by interchangeable?

You took whatever people or the DM wanted from whatever source, and worked out the details. I don't know anyone that played a BE elf in and AD&D game, but then again the elven fighter-magic user is right there (that might actually be a guiding principle: take from a different source if said thing doesn't exist in products you own of the mainly-played source). As for weapons, I don't know anyone who started with BX or BE who didn't use the variable weapon damage rules either, so if you were playing Basic, a sword did 1d8, and if playing AD&D, it did 1d8/1d12).

 

[Nebulous]

Growing up, I mistakenly believed Basic D&D was for kids and AD&D was for adults, so naturally I wanted to play the grown up version. Hence, I never once got to play the original D&D games, and only learned many years later that it was a stand alone product and not geared solely for children after all.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Growing up, I mistakenly believed Basic D&D was for kids and AD&D was for adults, so naturally I wanted to play the grown up version. Hence, I never once got to play the original D&D games, and only learned many years later that it was a stand alone product and not geared solely for children after all.

Certainly not. BX and BECMI were mostly written to a child (of some age)'s reading level, they did not include the number of exposed female bosoms' as oD&D or AD&D, and they included a default adventure or 'choose your own' adventure to hopefully make it easier for child players to pick up, but that's about it. The certainly did not modify the essential game loops, expectations, or survivability rates.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Presumably this was the official TSR line (though I'd be interested to hear if there were contradictory statements). But is this what veteran players really assumed back in the day? A wall between Basic D&D and AD&D, with nothing meant to be used interchangeably?

Not a wall, but there IS a separation. Even between 1E and 2E there is the same separation, despite 2E being deliberately designed to be exceptionally backward-compatible.