* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : OD&D vs AD&D Started at 03-29-04 07:21 AM by vader42xx Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=210320 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : vader42xx Date : 03-29-04 07:21 AM Thread Title : OD&D vs AD&D Thanks to SiHacker22 I've discovered the Rpg Now website with all it's great old content. I've been thinking of reverting to my D&D roots for some time and now that I have a viable way of getting all the old books I'm considering it even more. But I keep hitting up against a brick wall...whether to go with "basic" D&D or to pick up the AD&D books (1st and 2nd edition were so close together that I can use books from both so I'm not worried about which one in that case). With all the fluff material in the form of the various Gazetteers and the fact that the Rules Cyclopedia was one of the greatest works every published (probably the most complete roleplaying game in all of history) I think I would enjoy OD&D more. My only problems are the lack of "multi-classing" and my lack of memory on both basic and advanced. Were the classes too restrictive back in the basic game or did you find that they offered enough variety (especially with the above mentioned suppliments)? I like the simple nature of basic and the roleplaying over rollplaying that it offers but I think I might miss the ranger and a few of the options that having "race" and "class" might allow. Anyway, anybody have any thoughts and/or suggestions on this issue? I'd be glad to hear from anyone who's got anything to say...I'm just tired of 3rd edition...TSR made better products than WotC by far! :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Yorlum Date : 03-29-04 08:02 AM I will not bash either system, as I had long hours of enjoying both. That said, my personal preference is AD&D 1 ed. I find OD&D unbalanced in several areas, and the fact that you can play a viable campaign of AD&D with just the 3 core books is a major plus. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : vader42xx Date : 03-29-04 08:11 AM Which is one of the reasons I'm leaning towards OD&D actually..with the Rules Cyclopedia you can play a full scale campaign with just one book. lol I looked up the suppliments, etc that I would want for either OD&D or AD&D and (for me at least) it would come out far cheaper to play basic. But, I'm not just interested in the money. Any other comments (what was unbalanced that they fixed in AD&D for instance)? :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Yorlum Date : 03-29-04 11:51 AM I didn't realize that they'd consolidated the books... Heh. Regarding balancing, these are some of the issues... Hit dice. The 8 sided dice of Fighting men is improved to a D10 in AD&D. Similarly, Clerics go to D8. This strengthens both groups v Magic users, who stay at D4. 0 Level Characters. Useful to distinguish the masses from the PC's. Townfolk are 0-level, with fewer hp and worse attacks than 1st level pcs. Spells. Greater variety without any 'broken' spells. Spellcasters get a lot of room to customize with the AD&D spells. Weapons and Armor. Much greater varierty here. You can choose your desired protection/encumberance package and find an armor combo to suit it, basically. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : rogueattorney Date : 03-29-04 03:51 PM Thread Title : Re: OD&D vs AD&D Originally posted by vader42xx Were the classes too restrictive back in the basic game or did you find that they offered enough variety (especially with the above mentioned suppliments)?[/B] Mentzer/RC D&D just has a very different mentality than late 2e, which was awash in kits, and the current 3e "anbody can be anything" systems. Players have to not get hung up on what they "are" and pay more attention to what they do. Characters are very "Basic" (pun intended). They will take very little time to create. The important thing is that who they are is not embodied by what's on the paper. The character's story doesn't begin in media res, with his entire pre-campaign history mapped out before starting. It's up to the player to make each character an individual by playing the character. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : beavis123 Date : 03-29-04 05:00 PM Thread Title : the voice of reason 3e gets a bad rap from the boards on this website. There are plenty of players who know how to play the game properly. They just don't post on this website, they are too busy playing the game as it was intended. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : MikeJW Date : 03-29-04 06:32 PM If you have or know a young child who may be interested in starting RPG I say go for the basic/expert set. It's easy for them and still flexable enough for you. Otherwise, go for the ADD 1st ed. I believe it will give you more bang for your buck. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : beavis123 Date : 03-29-04 07:04 PM Thread Title : I agree Children or young adults may be over whelmed by 3e. Basic D&D or 1st ed are good places to start but it will not last. Someone will notice the dates on the copyrights and wonder "why are we playing this old game." Especially if a friend already has 3e. Basic is slightly diffrerent and could hold their attention a little longer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : rogueattorney Date : 03-29-04 10:48 PM Originally posted by beavis123 Basic D&D or 1st ed are good places to start but it will not last. Someone will notice the dates on the copyrights and wonder "why are we playing this old game." Yeah, I often find when I'm listening to the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Mozart, I wonder, "why the heck am I listening to this old stuff, maybe I should get that Brittany Spears CD. It's newer so it must be better" or "You know, Mark Twain and Shakespeare can't hold a candle to Danielle Steel. She's at least published something this century." or "Gone With the Wind and Citizen Kane can't be anywhere near as good as Encino Man. I mean, Encino Man is, like 50 years newer, so it has to be 50 years better." or "Chess has really flagged in popularity ever since someone discovered it's actually centuries old. Who'd want to play an old game like that?" Nice, logical, well reasoned. :rolleyes: R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : vader42xx Date : 03-30-04 01:33 AM I'm sorry, but Rougeattorney's post just made me laugh like a kid. lol And I really have to agree. I think I might have given the wrong impression of myself. I've been playing the various D&D games for more than 18 years now so I'm quite familiar with all the versions of the game (including playing 3e since it came out). I started this thread more to give myself a refresher course on the older games and to hear what other people think in case I might have missed something (and it's helped, thanks). :) As for 3rd edition, we won't be moving to that because it's "new and better." In fact, we're dumping it because it's "not so great." It's just not D&D and I don't mean "D&D as I remember it." It's a pretty good system, especially for those who grew up on Diablo and Neverwinter Nights but it's not D&D. The core of any D&D game was that you HAD to count on your fellow party members. That is the single most important thing about D&D and why many of us can't let the old editions go. Third edition gives far too many options so you have two outcomes: 1) You feel cheated when your character can't do half the stuff that's in his own character class 2) Even though you can't acquire all your own character abilities, you can easily acquire many from other classes. Having a fighter 1/wizard 1/rogue 1 gives you a third level character (and it doesn't take long to get there in 3e) who can just about do it all. And that very much takes the focus off "the party" and puts it on "the individual." And that's just not the spirit of D&D. Because of Diablo and other such games, the genre has moved to focus on the individual however. Those people raised on these games want to be able to hold their own in every situation and to have nothing denied to them. Oh sure, they can't do everything perfectly...but they should still be able to do a little of everything. And that's just not D&D. If you needed a lock picked you had to have a Thief or, otherwise, you were just going to have to bash it down and lose the element of surprise...simple as that. Anyway, 3e is not a bad system, it's just not for me and I don't think of it as D&D at all really. It's some new sheep hiding in wolf's clothing trying to gain money from the fame of an older and more stable game. So, while it's not bad, it's not for me and my group at all. Regarding basic vs advanced, I really still can't decide. Basic offers simplicity and a huge focus on let's play and roleplay (as someone mentioned above). However, while I agree that a character should be made up of how it acts and not what its stats are, I still have some problems with basic. Mostly, it won't allow a player to make many of his or her favorite character types. If someone wants to play a Gray Mouser (or Vlad Taltos for some younger readers) type of character advanced will allow it, while not making it as easy, fast, and boring as 3rd edition. However, basic will not. Simply put, I think if basic allowed some kind of multiclass system it would be perfect for me. I like the idea that demihuman races are what they are...this is, after all, what has kept them from "ruling the world" and has them falling behind the human race. That's stated in almost any product that has ever mentioned these races. They are inflexible so they are not changing with the world and, thus, losing ground. I think that is reflected best in basic (though advanced has some of it as well of course). The other thing is that I can't think of a setting in advanced that's as complete as the known world for basic (which also comes in one book by the way...lol). So that's more money I'd have to shell out. lol However, I still think 2nd edition advanced is the way I'm going to have to go due to basic's one or two very minor flaws. I'm not big on 1st edition personally. It's a great game but it's less "clean" and leans more towards devils, demons, the underworld, etc. Nothing wrong with those styles of games, but I tend to make adventures out of them, not entire campaigns. Besides, I like my rangers to cast cleric spells. :) Having said ALL of that (sorry for the long post) I'm still interested in what people have to say on basic vs advanced (please don't turn this into a "you should go to 3rd" as I've already made up my mind about that system). And, specifically, what is the real difference between the 1st edition Legends and Lore and the 2nd edtion? And I don't mean Deities and Demigos...I mean the Legends and Lore with Odin on the cover and the Legends and Lore with that minotaur god on the cover. Is there any difference or were they just reprints? I was under the impression (until last night) that there was no 1st edition Legends and Lore (I thought it was just Deities and Demigods). So, as this is the only one I can find...will it work with 2nd edition or not? Thanks again. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Omote Date : 03-30-04 06:17 PM The Rules Cyclopedia happens to be one og the greatest RPGs ever developed! Matter of fact I just completed a 12 month campaign of "Basic" using only the Rule Cyclopedia and the Gazetters. I had over the time an average of 10 players in the campaign and each memeber of the game I would consider I hard core D&Der. Everybody had a ton of fun, EVEN if the rules tend to be a bit unbalanced and "basic." It was a great game, and for the buck, you can't gett a more complete game. The D&D rules Cyclopedia while a single volume of the Basic, expert, companion, master, and Immortal rules, was lovingly put together. I thank Frank Mentzer and Arron Allston and the rest of the crew that put all of their work into that tome. get your Rules Cyclopedia NOW, while you can on eBay. Definatly a collector's item, and a great volume to boot!!! ..................................Omote -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Stonebeard Date : 03-30-04 07:43 PM Actually i'm not all that taken with the Rules Cyclopedia. While it certainly does have more scope than any other form of RPG i've seen (in one book) its too big a departure from the boxed sets for my liking. The basic functionality is the same but they left off some stuff from the box sets and added some from the gazeteer series. I've always preferred my game system stripped down. PHB, DMG, MM for any version of D&D is all i've ever, or ever will use. That said while I certainly enjoyed BASIC (as in level 1-3) i also did not care for having all those boxed sets around either so the rules cyclopedia had the odd affect of putting me off of OD&D altogether. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : vader42xx Date : 03-31-04 01:23 AM I tend to be the other way around, I like a detailed world to base the rest of my adventures on. I don't like written adventures, etc but I like a nice established world to give the charactes some feeling of history that they can read about as well as create on their own. But I've got a homebrew campaign that'll do that anyway if I decide to go with 2nd edition. And, anyone know what the difference is between the two Legends and Lore books (with Odin on the cover and the one with the Minotaur god on the cover)? One lists is 1st edition and the other is 2nd edition I believe but how much difference is there really? I can only find the Odin one and I don't want to buy it if it won't work for my 2nd edition games. Thanks. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : HEMonk Date : 03-31-04 04:36 AM @ vader42xx First, please don't regard this as a 'go 3E' post Second, i would like to defend at least some of the 3E players. It all depends on how you play the game (i don't think that i have to tell you that, but it makes for a nice introduction). Some people multiclass freely and form a loose group of individuals, but others, like me and my fellow gamers in my group don't want their character get 'spoiled' by another class. Multiclassing is only an option if it is really in character or if it involves a prestige class. Since we are only two people at most sessions, this imposes quite serious restrictions to almost all our possibilities. The first planned levels of another class (prestige in these cases) are planned around level 12 or higher for my monk, and somewhat earlier for the cleric. I don't think that qualifies us for the 'jack of all trades mentalitiy' you mentioned. Sorry to stray away from the main topic, but i just couldn't let this go uncommented :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : vader42xx Date : 03-31-04 05:48 AM No problem, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I just didn't want this thread to turn into a "tug of war" between editions as so many of them do. And, as it happens, I agree with you. Third edition itself isn't the problem. It's not a bad system in and of itself. I just don't like what it leans towards. You can most certainly get a party that looks identical to a 2e party...the problem is you don't often see it. And the reason is because 3e penalizes you if you built your party this way. You have to impose all sorts of restrictions on yourself if you want to build a 2e type party. And even if you do that you still end up with a more diverse party than in 2e. All characters get multiple attacks for instance, making the fighter a little choosen class. No racial level limits or class restrictions tends to populate the world with non-human races, etc. As I said, 3e isn't a bad game but it's just not D&D. You don't get the diverse group of characters and you don't have the feeling of needing the rest of the group, thus making the players come together better. Your statement that only the two of you play is an example of what I mean. In older editions D&D was a game that was designed for at least 4 to 5 people and though fewer could (and did) play it, you were always lacking something when you did. D&D was a group game....and playing it with less than 4 people was like playing poker for money with only 2 players. lol As for prestige classes, that's another thing I don't like about 3e at all. I know they are optional and that helps. But they've set it up in such a way that the core classes are so boring and generic you almost have to take a prestige class to make your character interesting...and those classes range from terribly underpowered to overpowered from hell. lol Anyway, 3e is a great game system, it targets a large group of people who are more familiar (and enjoy more) with the "video game" style of roleplaying. What's more, it takes that "diablo system" and adds depth and the ability to roleplay. So I have nothing but respect for the system as a roleplaying game. However, as D&D, it fails to meet expectations by a long shot. And I'm the first one to say I'm actually sorry to see that...I was really hoping for good things from 3e. Oh well. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : beavis123 Date : 03-31-04 09:42 AM Thread Title : I have a question Why does every thread begin with a conversation about an out of print product and turn into a discussion about 3e?? Is it because there nothing going on?? No one is playing these earlier versions?? Darth Ricker is keeping us up to date with his Star Frontiers campaign. I think everyone would enjoy hearing about other out of print campaigns or games going on!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : HEMonk Date : 03-31-04 10:07 AM Well, i apologize for not keeping my mouth shut, but i can't resist the urge to coment on that (again). Our party is everything except diverse. The Cleric plays as a Cleric, and the Monk is played as a Monk. Nobody is trying to fulfill other classes roles. We do impose a lot of restrictions on ourselves, but it gets only more challenging and, in the end, far more rewarding than this new playing style you observe. Sadly i don't have that much older edition experience like most of you do, but i like the new system and its flexibility (it gets pretty complex sometimes, but thats ok with me). I think lots of Prestige Classes are created for powergamers, but not all. In addition, i don't think the core classes are boring. I still don't know if i'm really going to take that PrC or go pure Monk all the way. It all depends on the 'common sense' of the players not to become munchkins and abuse them, but sadly, as you point out, that is the case for the majority of players in my age group (21) and around. While agreeing on most parts with your statements, i still try to hold up the flag for us 3E players (well, for a small few, but still...) EDIT: note: the flag thing is about the players, not the system :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-01-04 02:30 AM No problem man, you don't need to be sorry for speaking your mind. lol I just didn't want a bunch of flames running around in here, that's all. Anyway, I agree with you really. You know the only big difference between 2e and 3e? Second edition forced you to remain "in line" with the concepts I've mentioned above while third edition lets you do things your own way. Now many would say that's a good thing and, to a point, it is. The problem is that you are always going to end up with one or two players per group who want to max those characters out and 3e allows them to go a bit too far with it. Of course, as the DM, you can always make those players suffer for their choices but the spirit of D&D is NOT to pick on characters for following the rules. And I agree with it. So while 3e actually offers you more flexability and options that is, often times, the problem. A few minor changes would make the system more in line with D&D. Like revamping the multiclass system. Having everything stack and having your 1st level of wizard (if you're moving from say a 6th level to 7th level character...like fighter 6 wizard 1) cost you TONS of xp. I'm also not big on favored classes as that contributes to the rampant amount of characters that look like... rogue 2/fighter 2/cleric 16. In fact, I think the 2e multiclass and dualclass sytem was perfect with the exception that humans should have been able to pick up old classes later on. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with 3e, especially if you impose some common sense to it The problem is that a large amount of gamers and DMs alike just don't. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Alion Date : 04-02-04 01:24 AM Thread Title : Basic Versus AD&D I am currently running a group with beginner players and I have run them in a campaign using 1st edition with certain things of 2nd edition used.... Kind of makes things a little more interesting for them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-02-04 01:27 AM Yeah, I used to run a hybrid game way back when. Mine was a combination of basic and 2nd edition though. Maybe we just all need to storm WotC with out favorite books in hand and set down together until we get one single edition of D&D that really works well! :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Alion Date : 04-02-04 01:32 AM that would be a good idea, I have played one session in 3rd edition and some of the creatures were fun for combat, but I still like my hybrid campaign -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Algolei Date : 04-02-04 02:41 AM Thread Title : Voice of treason Originally posted by beavis123 Why does every thread begin with a conversation about an out of print product and turn into a discussion about 3e?? I've wondered that too. Why do you keep bringing it up? :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Algolei Date : 04-02-04 02:45 AM Originally posted by vader42xx Yeah, I used to run a hybrid game way back when. Mine was a combination of basic and 2nd edition though. Maybe we just all need to storm WotC with out favorite books in hand and set down together until we get one single edition of D&D that really works well! :) Originally posted by Alion that would be a good idea, I have played one session in 3rd edition and some of the creatures were fun for combat, but I still like my hybrid campaign Hybridization, yeah! I try to combine all the rules from all the games I like. Maybe there should be a thread about it? Heck, maybe there should be a whole board about it! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-02-04 05:40 AM One of these days I might just write up a hybrid using my own rules and just make my own roleplaying game. lol Not much future in that I guess. lol :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:21 AM.