Who played Basic D&D all the way up through all of the sets?

[cimbrog]

I started with the Basic boxed set in '83 and used OD&D as my core rules through all the boxes, the Cyclopedia and all the supplemental Mystara material (including Wrath of the Immortals which provided an actual coherent set of immortal rules). I DM'd a group of characters from level 1 to the high 20's over the course of 4 years - one even reached immortality (a pooka none the less - don't ask, it was weird).

As for how it played - awesome. In many ways its better to follow through the boxed sets than to use the Cyclopedia as it gives a better idea of how the character's careers are supposed to go. Basic levels (1-3) you're exploring the dungeons and perhaps becoming hometown heroes. Low Expert levels (4-8) you begin to travel overland and become a regional name. High Expert levels (9-14) is when you either become national heroes or settle down and begin to rule. Campagin level PCs (15-23) are now international powers either as heroes or as rulers. The Master levels (24-36) are where you become an interdimensional power or perhaps a power broker between empires. The rules are provided as needed in each set (keep building and overland travel in Expert, a great and simple domain management and mass combat system in Campaign and world changing powers in Masters).

In many ways playing through the boxed sets prepared me as DM to be able to create and run a D&D campaign as a no-brainer. I've a basic template I can follow if I ever need to fall back on something and many times fall back on it inadvertently ("Well, they're 6th level now. Time to start getting them involved in national politics...")

So, yeah. I played through the boxed sets and loved them. I tried 1st ed AD&D and only used it to steal stuff from. I moved to 2nd ed when it came out but took a lot of OD&D with me (weapon mastery, Mystara, War Machine, the dominion rules). I'm using 3rd ed exclusively now and until recently would never consider going back. But the old rulebook call and new players who have never kicked it old-school...

 

[MrFilthyIke]

I bought the 2ed AD&D book in 1989, tried to teach it to myself, got frustrated, bought the Red (Basic) Box. Loved it! Went on to Blue, Green, Black, and Gold, but my Masters set was stolen, if I ever find the kid... Have the rules Cyclopedia, have become VERY misty for my old characters and NPCs and going from 1st to 36th level. Never became Gods, but were working on it. Those were the gouda filled days...

 

[MarauderX]

Ah yes... did that with a group. Only 1 PC survived all the way from 2nd Level (the level we started) to 36th. We were about to convert everything to the Immortals set but the players asked if we could just keep going with the regular leveling. Not a problem, except the higher level adventures (22nd level on) were starting to be the same, and the players would say things like "Hey, this is like the black-dragon we fought back at the teleporting castle, only he's red and the castle is made of clouds." That happened mostly cause the rule of thumb was to level every 6-8 adventures. It's hard to do though, even when you are getting 1 XP per gold piece you drag home with you.

 

[rogueattorney]

Started off on the 1981 Moldvay/Cook Rules. Switched to 1e. AD&D 2e came out and I liked it Soooo much that I switched right back to D&D, getting the Companion and Masters sets, and later the RC.

For my campaigns, 14th or 15th level is about as high as anyone ever gets, so the latter sets and the RC has a lot of extraneous material. I also didn't use the option Weapon Mastery or Skills systems. However, it's still nice to have the Dominion, Siege Engine, War Machine and other rules.

R.A.

 

[RFisher]

For what its worth, a poll on the Dragonsfoot Classic D&D forum currently has 48% preferring the 1981 Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic/Expert edition & 30% preferring the later Mentzer BECMI/RC editions.

I think there are very few people who have actually worked characters all the way from 1st level to immortal.

It's funny, I only played a few tenative sessions with my Basic/Expert sets way back when. Now, over 20 years later, I find that game more appealling than so many of the other roleplaying games I've played in the intervening years.

 

[Remathilis]

Forgive my ignorance, but...

WHAT is the difference between the basic/expert box set versions and the Rules Cyclopedia?

 

[dbm]

We played all the way from 1st level to 36th and on to Immortal. At the time we were in our early teens, and let's just say the term 'munchkin' was invented for us...

The magic items in the BECM books are still the best in any game I've played since. Rods of the Wyrm! Sword of +5, +10 vs whatever and so on. Much better than Adnd magic items IMO.

I picked up the Cyclopedia rules out of nostaligia a little while ago. The problem I would have with them now is there is no skill system. No way for any one to, say, craft an item. Sure, you can improvise or add house rules - but you can do that with any system.

Dan

 

[johnsemlak]

Forgive my ignorance, but...

WHAT is the difference between the basic/expert box set versions and the Rules Cyclopedia?

Well, the short answer is no difference.

The Rules Cyclopedia was released after the 5 D&D boxed sets were released and compiled nearly all the rules from the first four (Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master), plus some of the Immortal rules and some information on the Mystara setting, including a color fold-out map IIRC. AFAIK the rules in the Rules Cyclopedia were unchanged.

Now, there were different editions of the Basic and Expert Sets. The early sets, done with Erol Otus covers and authored by Moldvay and David Cook respectively IIRC, differ slightly from the later sets (also of a Red and Blue boxes but with Larry Elmore covers). The differences were mostly minor, but the early sets had much faster thief ability progression and a few other things. The Rules Cyclopedia was based on the later sets.

 

[diaglo]

Well, the short answer is no difference.

The Rules Cyclopedia was released after the 5 D&D boxed sets were released and compiled nearly all the rules from the first four (Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master), plus some of the Immortal rules and some information on the Mystara setting, including a color fold-out map IIRC. AFAIK the rules in the Rules Cyclopedia were unchanged.

Now, there were different editions of the Basic and Expert Sets. The early sets, done with Erol Otus covers and authored by Moldvay and David Cook respectively IIRC, differ slightly from the later sets (also of a Red and Blue boxes but with Larry Elmore covers). The differences were mostly minor, but the early sets had much faster thief ability progression and a few other things. The Rules Cyclopedia was based on the later sets.

don't forget the Holmes versions of Basic with the Sutherland artwork.

yes, there are differences in each version. Holmes, Moldvay, Cook, and Mentzer.

RC is the Mentzer compilation.

 

[Ranes]

I started with 1e AD&D, just before the first Basic rules hit the shelves. I played lots of ther RPGs too, so when Basic et al appeared, I just looked at it for what it was, an introductory version of a game I was already playing, so I never played or DMed the series. I did read all the rules and modules, though, simply because I had the opportunity.

It was only around the time of 2e's appearance that I came across an OD&D set (actually, the 1977 "collector's edition"). I did run a brief campaign with that but I couldn't help filling in the gaps with AD&D/Runequest concepts. It was only a novelty.
When I disposed of my 2e library in the nineties, I thought that was it for me and D&D. Indeed, when a gamer friend shoved a 3e PH under my nose, soon after the book had been released, I really didn't want to know. A year later, while recovering from an operation, and having been utterly disillusioned with online roleplaying (an oxymoron for sure) a la EQ, I bought the 3e books for a read. Now here I am, preparing for Saturday's game.