OSR Why B/X?

[Reynard]

No, Basic had multiple Editions, distinct from OD&D:

• Holmes
• Moldvay
• Mentzer
• Black Box
• Rules Cyclopedia

Sure, they were fairly conservative Editiom changes, but so are Call of Cthulu's and they are on 7E.

Which is ironically closer to the standard use of "edition" in publishing.

 

[Geekrampage]

Well, that's because "B/X" doesn't actually exist. It's not a discrete "edition" of D&D, not in the sense that we use "edition" nowadays to mean a complete, iterated version of an RPG. The D&D game as it was published 1974–1996 is more of a continuum than a series.

Yes, but in this context, I'm asking for a rules clarification for Old School Essentials specifically, on the Old School Essentials Facebook group - but the answers pull from all areas of that continuum.

To be fair, this happened to me when we first started playing OSE. I enforced a "free attack on retreating foes" rule because I was sure it was part of Basic D&D. When I looked it up in OSE, it wasn't there. Upon further research - it was in Holmes D&D, but NOT in Moldvay B/X or beyond.

 

[Parmandur]

Which is ironically closer to the standard use of "edition" in publishing.

Exactly. Depebding on you want to count, by using standard publishing industry usage the upcoming 2024 rulebooks are somewhere between the 9th (restricting just to the AD&D hardcover lineage) and 15th Edition of the game.

 

[Reynard]

Exactly. Depebding on you want to count, by using standard publishing industry usage the upcoming 2024 rulebooks are somewhere between the 9th (restricting just to the AD&D hardcover lineage) and 15th Edition of the game.

Or the 2nd edition of the game D&D 5E...

 

[overgeeked]

Well, that's because "B/X" doesn't actually exist. It's not a discrete "edition" of D&D, not in the sense that we use "edition" nowadays to mean a complete, iterated version of an RPG. The D&D game as it was published 1974–1996 is more of a continuum than a series.

Except for the massive rules changes between OD&D, the Holmes Basic box, and the later Basic line. If anything those are three separate editions (in the modern sense) of the game. It would be the later revisions (BECMI and RC) that would "not exist" as separate editions as they're mostly minor revisions of and expansions on B/X.

 

[Parmandur]

Or the 2nd edition of the game D&D 5E...

Yup. It really makes sense for them to move away from using the word when D&D has had such an inconsistent and bizarre history of usage.

 

[Mannahnin]

I will say this, however. Whenever I ask a rule question about B/X/OSE on the OSE Facebook group, I will get answers quoting rules from every edition all over the map. It seems no one on the OSE FB group actually plays OSE RAW. People start quoting rules from AD&D, Rules Cyclopedia, Mentzer, or rules that just don't exist but everyone THINKS they exist because that's always been the way they played.

IME Facebook groups are worse about this than forums, as they tend to have a higher percentage of people who a) have poor reading comprehension in the first place, and b) are scrolling quickly and lose track of what group they're in.

I'm in ten or twelve such groups (maybe more), of which 3-4 are more active than the others, and I sometimes need to scroll back up to make sure which group I'm in. Some folks evidently don't bother.

Others just answer off the cuff from memory without being too clear on the rules, especially if the OP isn't especially clear that they're asking about the official by the book rule.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Well, that's because "B/X" doesn't actually exist. It's not a discrete "edition" of D&D, not in the sense that we use "edition" nowadays to mean a complete, iterated version of an RPG. The D&D game as it was published 1974–1996 is more of a continuum than a series.

No, Basic had multiple Editions, distinct from OD&D:{examples}
Sure, they were fairly conservative Editiom changes, but so are Call of Cthulu's and they are on 7E.

Which is ironically closer to the standard use of "edition" in publishing.

Exactly. Depebding on you want to count, by using standard publishing industry usage the upcoming 2024 rulebooks are somewhere between the 9th (restricting just to the AD&D hardcover lineage) and 15th Edition of the game.

Or the 2nd edition of the game D&D 5E...

Except for the massive rules changes between OD&D, the Holmes Basic box, and the later Basic line. If anything those are three separate editions (in the modern sense) of the game. It would be the later revisions (BECMI and RC) that would "not exist" as separate editions as they're mostly minor revisions of and expansions on B/X.

Yup. It really makes sense for them to move away from using the word when D&D has had such an inconsistent and bizarre history of usage.

How about we be diplomatic and say that D&D and AD&D have had some idiosyncratic ways of distinguishing and designating 'versions' of the game?

 

[Parmandur]

How about we be diplomatic and say that D&D and AD&D have had some idiosyncratic ways of distinguishing and designating 'versions' of the game?

Nah, no reason to be diplomatic, when the situation is of such epically comical incompetence. TSR fudged up normal publishing terminology and practice beyond recognition because of a desire to take away royalties from Dave Arneson, and it didn't even work. The result was massive product confusion which continues down to this very thread.

 

[Reynard]

How about we be diplomatic and say that D&D and AD&D have had some idiosyncratic ways of distinguishing and designating 'versions' of the game?

5E is not a "version" of AD&D in any meaningful sense. They share a bunch of terminology and a few core mechanics, but little else.