Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dungeonosophy" data-source="post: 5889374" data-attributes="member: 6688049">Bd&amp;d?&nbsp;The AD&amp;D folk tend to call it BD&amp;D, based on the dichotomy of &quot;Advanced&quot; and &quot;Basic&quot;. That's logical. BD&amp;D is a legitimate name.&nbsp;However, the name &quot;BD&amp;D&quot; runs into the fact that only levels 1 to 3 of &quot;BD&amp;D&quot; were called &quot;<a href="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/basic.html" target="_blank">Basic</a>&quot;. (Whizbang, you probably know all this, but I'm taking this opportunity to share some history.)&nbsp;Then there was <a href="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/expert.html" target="_blank">Expert</a> D&amp;D released during the Moldvay/Cook era.&nbsp;And then the Mentzer-era Companion D&amp;D, Master D&amp;D, and Immortal D&amp;D. So, <a href="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/highdd.html" target="_blank">BECMI D&amp;D</a>.&nbsp;Others call it OD&amp;D (&quot;Old D&amp;D&quot; or &quot;Original D&amp;D&quot;) or even &quot;Zero Edition&quot; (0e). But the name OD&amp;D is scoffed at by the pre-AD&amp;D/pre-BD&amp;D grognards, since the <a href="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/original.html" target="_blank">manila-era booklets</a> are even Older, and more Original. However, they ought not scoff too hard since the Mentzer box sets explictly state in the introduction that they are a continuation of the &quot;Original D&amp;D&quot; game. But I admit that, to avoid confusion, &quot;OD&amp;D&quot; is the most distinct name for the manila-era edition.&nbsp;Anyway, officially the game was simply called &quot;D&amp;D&quot;, as distinguished from &quot;AD&amp;D&quot;.*&nbsp;Then the BECM boxed sets were replaced by a slick hardcover Rules Cyclopedia, and the Immortals set was replaced by the Wrath of the Immortals boxed set, which drastically revised the deity-level rules. During this era, the game started to be called &quot;Classic Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot;; for example, on the cover of the 1994 intro boxed set. This name (CD&amp;D) is useful as an overarching word for all iterations of that lineage. There were revisions in each iteration of CD&amp;D, like AD&amp;D 2e vs. AD&amp;D 2.5e (Players/DMs Options) or D&amp;D 3.0e vs. 3.5e.&nbsp;*[So when 3e dropped the &quot;Advanced&quot;, this raised the eyebrows of both D&amp;D and AD&amp;D players. Resistance from the D&amp;D players because 3e was really, rules-wise, and setting-wise, a continuation of the AD&amp;D lineage. And resistance from the AD&amp;D players because &quot;D&amp;D&quot; seemed to imply &quot;less advanced&quot;.]&nbsp;So there are four iterations of CD&amp;D:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Holmes BD&amp;D</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Moldvay/Cook B/X D&amp;D</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mentzer BECMI D&amp;D</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Allston RC/WotI D&amp;D</li>
</ul>That's what happened to just calling it BD&amp;D. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dungeonosophy, post: 5889374, member: 6688049"] [b]Bd&d?[/b] The AD&D folk tend to call it BD&D, based on the dichotomy of "Advanced" and "Basic". That's logical. BD&D is a legitimate name. However, the name "BD&D" runs into the fact that only levels 1 to 3 of "BD&D" were called "[URL="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/basic.html"]Basic[/URL]". (Whizbang, you probably know all this, but I'm taking this opportunity to share some history.) Then there was [URL="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/expert.html"]Expert[/URL] D&D released during the Moldvay/Cook era. And then the Mentzer-era Companion D&D, Master D&D, and Immortal D&D. So, [URL="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/highdd.html"]BECMI D&D[/URL]. Others call it OD&D ("Old D&D" or "Original D&D") or even "Zero Edition" (0e). But the name OD&D is scoffed at by the pre-AD&D/pre-BD&D grognards, since the [URL="http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/original.html"]manila-era booklets[/URL] are even Older, and more Original. However, they ought not scoff too hard since the Mentzer box sets explictly state in the introduction that they are a continuation of the "Original D&D" game. But I admit that, to avoid confusion, "OD&D" is the most distinct name for the manila-era edition. Anyway, officially the game was simply called "D&D", as distinguished from "AD&D".* Then the BECM boxed sets were replaced by a slick hardcover Rules Cyclopedia, and the Immortals set was replaced by the Wrath of the Immortals boxed set, which drastically revised the deity-level rules. During this era, the game started to be called "Classic Dungeons & Dragons"; for example, on the cover of the 1994 intro boxed set. This name (CD&D) is useful as an overarching word for all iterations of that lineage. There were revisions in each iteration of CD&D, like AD&D 2e vs. AD&D 2.5e (Players/DMs Options) or D&D 3.0e vs. 3.5e. *[So when 3e dropped the "Advanced", this raised the eyebrows of both D&D and AD&D players. Resistance from the D&D players because 3e was really, rules-wise, and setting-wise, a continuation of the AD&D lineage. And resistance from the AD&D players because "D&D" seemed to imply "less advanced".] So there are four iterations of CD&D: [LIST] [*]Holmes BD&D [*]Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D [*]Mentzer BECMI D&D [*]Allston RC/WotI D&D [/LIST]That's what happened to just calling it BD&D. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification