* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Basic D&D - Companion Book Started at 06-22-07 08:45 PM by keyunp Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=872440 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : keyunp Date : 06-22-07 08:45 PM Thread Title : Basic D&D - Companion Book Any one remember the Basic sets? You know the red / blue / green / black / gold books? In the Companion DM book (green) it has some simple rules for Domains and Mass combat. Does anyone still use it and / or made any improvements? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Hugin Date : 06-22-07 11:51 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book You can also find these rules in the Rules Cyclopedia - a compilation of those sets. I highly recommend it if you play OD&D. The mass combat and Dominion rules can be found in there as well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Agathokles Date : 06-23-07 04:25 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Any one remember the Basic sets? You know the red / blue / green / black / gold books? In the Companion DM book (green) it has some simple rules for Domains and Mass combat. Does anyone still use it and / or made any improvements? More detailed rules for domain management can be found in a series of articles from Dragon Magazine (plus clarifications, examples, and an excel sheet from the MML) by Bruce Heard, here: http://www.pandius.com/rules.html and specifically these files: http://www.pandius.com/assemble.html http://www.pandius.com/eco_101.html http://www.pandius.com/eco_101.zip http://www.pandius.com/kwgrim.html Also, some people on the MML developed an extension to the War Machine that can be found here: http://www.pandius.com/mymics.html A small set of rules for aerial combat: http://www.pandius.com/air_mach.html And, finally, extensions to the War Machine for sea combat can be found in the Kingdom of Ierendi Gazetteer, and for sieges in the Master Set (the black boxed set). G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : keyunp Date : 06-23-07 01:07 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book :thumbsup: Thanks -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Solaris Date : 06-23-07 07:59 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book You can also find these rules in the Rules Cyclopedia - a compilation of those sets. I highly recommend it if you play OD&D. Why? It has nothing to do with OD&D; as you said, the Rules Cyclopedia is a compilation of Frank Mentzer's 1983 boxed sets. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : havard Date : 06-24-07 04:16 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Why? It has nothing to do with OD&D; as you said, the Rules Cyclopedia is a compilation of Frank Mentzer's 1983 boxed sets. Different usage of the term OD&D. OD&D can refer to "Original D&D" as in Gary Gygax' original ruleset, but can also be used to refer to "Old D&D" also called "Classic D&D" meaning everything D&D not AD&D or 3.0/3.5. I'm guessing Hugin was referring to the second meaning of the term. :) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Solaris Date : 06-24-07 04:08 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book I suspect that that alternative usage originated with people mistakenly thinking that Basic was original D&D, and passing their confusion on to others. Those who are familiar with OD&D don't refer to later versions as OD&D. Collectors, players, people who wish to avoid confusion and be understood, will draw a distinction between OD&D, D&D, AD&D, etc. You might as well call original AD&D "Third Edition D&D" (In publication order: Original, Holmes Basic, AD&D) as call D&D "OD&D". Frank Mentzer doesn't refer to his sets as OD&D, and it's silly for anyone else to. I've never played OD&D, so I'd be pretty excited if someone invited me to join a game. Now imagine my disappointment when I got there and they pulled out Mentzer or Moldvay/Cook. I'd have to conclude that they didn't know what they were talking about. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Agathokles Date : 06-24-07 05:46 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book I suspect that that alternative usage originated with people mistakenly thinking that Basic was original D&D, and passing their confusion on to others. Wrong. Most people do know the boxed sets were not the first version of D&D, but refer with OD&D (Old D&D, as Havard said, if you prefer to keep the Original for the first version) to the group of (largely compatible) editions going from Moldvay to BECMI to RC. Which is pretty reasonable were no confusion can arise -- such as in this thread, since we're clearly speaking to this OD&D, or e.g. in the context of Mystara, since the setting only exists in BECMI, RC and AD&D 2e (see for example "OD&D" in the official fan website for Mystara, http://www.pandius.com/acronyms.html). It is quite likely that the two terms were originally used in different communities -- I find that BECMI, e.g., is mostly used on Dragonsfoot, while OD&D has been in use for more than a decade in the Mystara Mailing List with the same meaning. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Solaris Date : 06-24-07 06:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book (Old D&D, as Havard said, if you prefer to keep the Original for the first version) to the group of (largely compatible) editions going from Moldvay to BECMI to RC. ... (see for example "OD&D" in the official fan website for Mystara, http://www.pandius.com/acronyms.html). Even they're using it to mean "original", not "old": OD&D "Original" D&D. Though not strictly the first edition of the D&D rules, used to refer to the Basic through Immortals line of rules sets (later combined into the Rules Cyclopedia) So they have to explain themselves, in order to prevent confusion: "Original, but by that we don't actually mean original, we mean the boxed sets". LOL Why call it original when you know it's not original? If you have the knowledge, it doesn't cost anything to use terminology correctly; consider it a courtesy to your reader. Otherwise, people will assume you either don't have the knowledge or don't care about communicating clearly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : caeruleus Date : 06-24-07 11:46 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book If you have the knowledge, it doesn't cost anything to use terminology correctly; consider it a courtesy to your reader. Otherwise, people will assume you either don't have the knowledge or don't care about communicating clearly. Or maybe we'll assume that they've been informed of the different usage from the one they're used to, yet refuse to acknowledge it as legitimate, for some strange reason, making it a bigger deal than it needs to be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Solaris Date : 06-25-07 12:45 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Or maybe we'll assume that they've been informed of the different usage from the one they're used to, yet refuse to acknowledge it as legitimate, for some strange reason, making it a bigger deal than it needs to be. Different usage of "original", which doesn't actually mean "original". That's not very legitimate. Or perhaps you mean the other alleged usage, where the "O" means "Old". How useful is it to call old D&D "OD&D" when that's already a term used to mean "Original D&D"? Might as well call AD&D "OD&D" too, since it's old, and 3E too, since it's now out of print. It's ridiculous, and people who do it look ignorant. Sorry, maybe I am making too much of it. It's just a pet peeve, is all. I try to be clear in my communications, and it's frustrating to think that despite my efforts I'm likely to be misunderstood. If I use a term like OD&D, it seems an alarming number of people here won't know what i'm talking about, and don't even view that as a problem. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Agathokles Date : 06-25-07 03:19 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Why call it original when you know it's not original? If you have the knowledge, it doesn't cost anything to use terminology correctly; consider it a courtesy to your reader. Otherwise, people will assume you either don't have the knowledge or don't care about communicating clearly. Because it's a decade-old custom, and people feel no real need to change it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Solaris Date : 06-25-07 03:33 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Because it's a decade-old custom, and people feel no real need to change it. If I found out that for the last 10 years I'd been calling something "original" which in fact wasn't, I'd be in a hurry to change. But I guess that's just me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Agathokles Date : 06-25-07 03:42 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Sorry, maybe I am making too much of it. It's just a pet peeve, is all. I try to be clear in my communications, and it's frustrating to think that despite my efforts I'm likely to be misunderstood. It seems to me that your efforts go in the wrong direction. You can't change the convention used by a large community, not any more than you can move English to a phonetic spelling. You just use it the way others do. If I use a term like OD&D, it seems an alarming number of people here won't know what i'm talking about, and don't even view that as a problem. Indeed, you shouldn't probably use it here to mean Gygax' D&D. If you are referring to a specific edition, use the name of the author or the year of publishing, otherwise people will assume you're speaking of OD&D in the sense given in the acronym list. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Solaris Date : 06-25-07 03:53 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Indeed, you shouldn't probably use it here to mean Gygax' D&D. Yeah, you're probably right; talking about classic D&D here is the problem. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Agathokles Date : 06-25-07 04:12 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book If I found out that for the last 10 years I'd been calling something "original" which in fact wasn't, I'd be in a hurry to change. But I guess that's just me. Indeed, that's not the way language works -- it works by consensus, not by prescription. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Solaris Date : 06-25-07 04:26 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Indeed, that's not the way language works -- it works by consensus, not by prescription. Undoubtedly. The ignorant corrupt, and others attempt to educate them and thereby slow the corruption, and on average things change. It's only a matter of time before, for example, "could of" will be considered grammatically correct, while "could have" will be considered archaic usage, but we don't have to go quietly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Hugin Date : 06-25-07 11:52 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Why? It has nothing to do with OD&D; as you said, the Rules Cyclopedia is a compilation of Frank Mentzer's 1983 boxed sets. Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you so much. I will tread more lightly in the future. Using OD&D to indicate those boxed sets is an old habit understood by others that I usually talk with. I will be more careful with its application on this forum. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : caeruleus Date : 06-25-07 12:48 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Different usage of "original", which doesn't actually mean "original". That's not very legitimate. Or perhaps you mean the other alleged usage, where the "O" means "Old". How useful is it to call old D&D "OD&D" when that's already a term used to mean "Original D&D"? Might as well call AD&D "OD&D" too, since it's old, and 3E too, since it's now out of print. It's ridiculous, and people who do it look ignorant. Actually, I wasn't just referring to the "O", but to the whole of "OD&D", which does get used to refer to B/X and BECMI. I don't consider it especially useful, and I try to avoid using it myself. (In fact, because of this ambiguity, I refer to what you call "OD&D" explicitly as "the original 1974 rules".) But that's how it's used, and it's worth knowing how others use it. I try to be clear in my communications, and it's frustrating to think that despite my efforts I'm likely to be misunderstood. The ignorant corrupt, and others attempt to educate them and thereby slow the corruption, and on average things change. I understand your frustration. You try hard to communicate well, and it's undermined by people who don't put in that effort. But the meanings of terms are not eternal Platonic Forms. Language is constantly evolving, especially with a new medium of communication (such as the internet). The meaning of a term is how the term is used, nothing more. Consequently, the same term will have different meanings among different groups. Hence the ambiguity of "OD&D". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : keyunp Date : 06-26-07 03:28 AM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book OD&D And my first thought on seeing that was Oriental D&D. :D I understood what it meant, but first impressions and what you are used to are hard to change. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : havard Date : 06-26-07 03:30 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book In spite of the unclear use of terminology, it was remarkably easy to understand what the OP was talking about since he a) referred to the Companion book and b) referred to specific rules that are only found in the companion rules and the RC. :P Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : caeruleus Date : 06-26-07 05:01 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book In spite of the unclear use of terminology, it was remarkably easy to understand what the OP was talking about since he a) referred to the Companion book and b) referred to specific rules that are only found in the companion rules and the RC. :P Yes, the OP was quite clear. That's because he made no reference to OD&D at all. :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : havard Date : 06-26-07 05:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Yes, the OP was quite clear. That's because he made no reference to OD&D at all. :P Ack! You are right. My bad. In fact, looking back at the discussion I find that: Solaris wrote: Why? It has nothing to do with OD&D; as you said, the Rules Cyclopedia is a compilation of Frank Mentzer's 1983 boxed sets. That statement is wrong since Mentzer's rules are easily compatible with the Original D&D rules. Anyway, whats that about dead horses and a good beating? ;) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Solaris Date : 06-26-07 05:39 PM Thread Title : Re: Basic D&D - Companion Book Mentzer's rules are easily compatible with the Original D&D rulesSure, as easily as AD&D or any number of other versions which also aren't OD&D. I was just pointing out the mistake. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.