Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9133622" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So, I have to disagree with this.First, &quot;Advanced D&amp;D&quot; was not cooked up just to avoid royalty payments. That's a common misperception, but the reality is a lot more complicated. TSR had a good faith belief that Arneson was only due royalties on the sales of the original OD&amp;D ruleset- not any additional material. It's more complicated that that, and I suggest reading Game Wizards (I think I've mentioned this a lot recently) to get the full details, but it's not true that the purpose of AD&amp;D was to dodge royalty payments.Next, the delineation of lines. The first Basic was not &quot;Basic&quot; was we normally think of it, but Holmes Basic, which was actually a cleaned up version of OD&amp;D. Inserted into it was a reference to the forthcoming AD&amp;D.When you view it that way, it makes a lot more sense. AD&amp;D wasn't a &quot;new edition&quot; per se. And Basic certainly wasn't a branching line.Instead, Basic was the cleaned up OD&amp;D rules. AD&amp;D was also OD&amp;D, except with all the supplements, a bunch of additional previously published material (such as Strategic Review and Dragon articles) as well as some new material, edited and put together. But Holmes Basic was just levels 1-3, and was more of a &quot;starter set&quot; to the Advanced D&amp;D. Even though Holmes had different rules than AD&amp;D, because ... reasons.The later Moldvay/Cook B/X and Mentzer BECMI was the result of the litigation, and also looked back to OD&amp;D, albeit with revisions (such as race-as-class). While this was interoperable with AD&amp;D, it was also a different game.The idea of different &quot;editions&quot; only arose with 2e, which became confusing because, unlike future editions (3e, 4e, 5e), 2e was just AD&amp;D (1e) but edited and changed up a little. But there was nothing that was fundamentally different about it, which was not true for the later edition changes starting with the WoTC era.TLDR; trying to understand what is, and isn't, an edition in D&amp;D is an exercise in frustration, other than acknowledging the actual editions and reasoning from there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9133622, member: 7023840"] So, I have to disagree with this. First, "Advanced D&D" was not cooked up just to avoid royalty payments. That's a common misperception, but the reality is a lot more complicated. TSR had a good faith belief that Arneson was only due royalties on the sales of the original OD&D ruleset- not any additional material. It's more complicated that that, and I suggest reading [I]Game Wizards [/I](I think I've mentioned this a lot recently) to get the full details, but it's not true that the purpose of AD&D was to dodge royalty payments. Next, the delineation of lines. The first Basic was not "Basic" was we normally think of it, but [I]Holmes[/I] Basic, which was actually a cleaned up version of OD&D. Inserted into it was a reference to the forthcoming AD&D. When you view it that way, it makes a lot more sense. AD&D wasn't a "new edition" per se. And Basic certainly wasn't a branching line. Instead, Basic was the cleaned up OD&D rules. AD&D was also OD&D, except with all the supplements, a bunch of additional previously published material (such as Strategic Review and Dragon articles) as well as some new material, edited and put together. But Holmes Basic was just levels 1-3, and was more of a "starter set" to the [I]Advanced [/I]D&D. Even though Holmes had different rules than AD&D, because ... reasons. The later Moldvay/Cook B/X and Mentzer BECMI was the result of the litigation, and also looked back to OD&D, albeit with revisions (such as race-as-class). While this was interoperable with AD&D, it was also a different game. The idea of different "editions" only arose with 2e, which became confusing because, unlike future editions (3e, 4e, 5e), 2e was just AD&D (1e) but edited and changed up a little. But there was nothing that was [I]fundamentally different about it, [/I]which was not true for the later edition changes starting with the WoTC era. TLDR; trying to understand what is, and isn't, an edition in D&D is an exercise in frustration, other than acknowledging the actual editions and reasoning from there. [/QUOTE]

Verification