* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : D&D Only? Started at 04-10-05 01:21 AM by WizzyBlackmore Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=411027 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-10-05 01:21 AM Thread Title : D&D Only? Do people play this? Meaning no core AD&D books/mod/suppliments? While thinking about it, it probably would make my life alot easier.......dice, that fat rulebook and some mods.....simple....eh? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-10-05 01:30 AM :confused: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : I'm Batman Date : 04-10-05 02:29 AM :thinks: Do you mean "basic" D&D? If so, then yes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-10-05 02:40 AM Dungeons and Dragons....not AD&D....Basic, Expert, Companion, Immortal, etc.....I have a ton of D&D mods then a ton of AD&D mods.....question is....do people stck purely to the D&D rules....a friend asked me about a year ago.....what are you playing D&D or AD&D?......I said a hybrid of both.....I understood it as the AD&D covers and goes farther than D&D but I found that there are many differences in tables, HD, etc....maybe this is a lame thread..... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Attila Date : 04-10-05 02:54 AM Lame? No. Unclear? Yes. Yes, I play Basic D&D. I think it's the best set of rules out there. When I want a classic rules lite game I play Basic/Expert. No need to foul it up with AD&D rules. When I want to play full blown D&D I play 3.5e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-10-05 03:00 AM OK, I'm REALLY focusing on the fact that some people consider D&D and AD&D 2 different games (late 70's/early 80's)....my question was are there people here that are D&D purists that do not acknowledge AD&D....?? Thread getting lamer...... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Attila Date : 04-10-05 03:30 AM Thread Title : Now that is lame... Yeah, I'm a purist then because I consider Basic D&D and AD&D 2 separate and very distinct games. They're probably more different than 1ed and 2ed AD&D are. I do play Basic D&D with just the one book, dice and module. Pencil and paper help too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : I'm Batman Date : 04-10-05 05:28 PM OK, I'm REALLY focusing on the fact that some people consider D&D and AD&D 2 different games (late 70's/early 80's).... Well, they are different games. They just use different systems and different rules to accomplish similar things, though. my question was are there people here that are D&D purists that do not acknowledge AD&D....?? There are still many people who prefer D&D over AD&D. Many AD&D players used to treat the D&D game as a "lesser" version, although that wasn't true. And some D&D players certainly took exception to that, and rightly so. Both have their benefits over the other. I prefer a blend of everything good that I can find. (That can make for a very difficult game, however, since it means discounting parts of every rulebook you've got. My players want me to produce my own books so they can know for certain every rule in my game, to prevent surprises from "popping up" unexpectedly, but that just hasn't been possible for me to do.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-10-05 09:01 PM Ihave never mixed D&D with AD&D and find no compelling reason to do so. If left up to me I'd be playing nothing but D&D, long long time ago i was forced into playing AD&D which for our purposes here would be described as 1e edition. I have always preferred a single book role playing game and D&D did it for me especially the Rules cyclopedia (did anyone anywhere make a more complete role playing game than the rules cyclopedia?) even so I'd rather play the boxed sets for basic and expert again if left to me. My players, whom have stayed with me these last 20 some years insist on playing AD&D so I have learned to embrace it also. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Monteblanco Date : 04-10-05 11:37 PM I never mixed D&D with AD&D. As a matter of fact, I started with the Molday Basic set, upgraded to AD&D, stop playing for almost 10 years, returned to AD&D 2nd edition, moved to d20 D&D, and finally went back to the basics, as my last campaign was powered by the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Monteblanco Date : 04-10-05 11:44 PM I kind of not answered the question. I played D&D without expansions. The same with AD&D till the release of Unearthed Arcana, the Survival Guides were never popular with my friends. I played AD&D 2nd edition with the three core books alone, the same with d20 D&D when I run the game, although I played in a game run by another DM that used all the 3.0 splats. Finally, I currently use the D&D Rules Cyclopedia that don't require the use of any other volume. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-11-05 12:40 AM There's a lot of misconceptions, I think, about OD&D (the "three little books" - which sound more like manuals upon which some doomed socialist government was built, but I digress). Original D&D in it's '74 form, plus the five supplements (well, maybe not Swords & Spells) are or rather were a totally complete game unto themselves. There's nothing in the world wrong with playing those rules, and people who think of them as somehow insufficient or unworkable due to the age of the rules have probably never looked at them. The interesting thing is, at least from my point of view, that you can easily mix and match AD&D with these rules. Don't like the way characters work in OD&D but like everything else? Use the 1e Player's Handbook. Prefer a more expanded monster compendium, but no more? Use the three monster books from AD&D...etc. That said, OD&D also has a lot in common with later "Basic" D&D forms (including the sadly underappreciated so-called "Holmes Basic"), such as races-as-classes, a three-alignment system, and so on. Like all pre 3e works, OD&D functions quite well in the hands of an able DM and its rules are easy to adapt to AD&D 1e or most of the Basic D&D rulesets... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Monteblanco Date : 04-11-05 09:41 AM Dungeon & Dragons nomenclature is kind of confusing. The original release could be considered the first edition. Latter, there are two games, the D&D line, and the AD&D line. The D&D line got several editions, the first by Gygax & Arneson, the second by Molday & Cook, the third by Mentzer, which was later compiled in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. The AD&D line had two editions, the first by Gygax, the second by Cook. The d20 D&D is kind of new edition of AD&D, although it has a lot of things, such as Prestige Class, standard ability bonuses, short duration rounds, taken from the D&D line. As such, the so called 3rd edition is a mix of 3rd edition AD&D and 4th edition D&D. Perhaps we should use the average and start calling it 3.5th edition D&D. Hey, it seems I got the math right! :P Added in edit: I forgot Holmes, which is the second edition of D&D. As such, this line got four edition and the math doesn't work as well as I thought. :( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-11-05 02:37 PM My favourite D&D is the classic D&D (basic/expert). Doesnt matter if its Mentzers or Moldvay/Cook's (or the fantastic rules cyclopedia with the equally fantastically crappy artwork) With those books, you will never need any more material, though adding new monsters is always fun. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:15 AM.