TheRPGSite

http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4171516

Idiot sighting, post #7.

What is this? Village Iidiot Day?

Its like they are crawling out of the woodwork to all post today.

And post #8 is precious too. How quaint.

I've never played or even looked at OD&D, but it seems obvious the fellow never had a decent DM.  Hard to fault a bloke who has never had a good game for not liking the game.

I feel sorry for these people. It's like they feel they need written permission from the company before they can pop the hood on a game and start fucking around with it.

If I felt that way 90+% of all RPGs would be "Unplayable" to me.

The stupid, it burns us.

A lot of us don't like the old D&D games. I appreciate some "older" games (BRP :-), but I won't touch 0e - 4e. I simply dislike them. Now, are they unplayable? That's a matter of opinion, which these people are sharing. Not facts. Just opinions. Everyone on the internet speaks their opinion like it's a truth.

Personally, I dislike D&D in general, the older editions especially. I DMed those games for many MANY years, so it's not from lack of experience. I just prefer different mechanics.

Now, that being said, I've seen some nifty OSR stuff that frankly I wish was around when I was trying to make D&D work for me. Nifty ideas. I came up in a crowd that were willing to combine things, but not revise or modify them. So, looking at the OSR today, it's pretty impressive to see the creativity of fans basically modifying the game I secretly wanted to modify myself. :-)

It's not unreasonable for someone who has played 3.x (a somewhat cohesive approach) to find 0e "unplayable". It's a matter of perspective. It depends on what games were your first.

I started with the red box set. It was a wonderful introduction to the game. Had I started with AD&D 1e or those little booklets, I may not have been as impressed. I programmed basic on the comodore 64. Played video games on my Atari 2600. If TSR wanted to grab my attention, they needed to bring their A game. Those Toys R Us commercials and the red box were perfectly targeted to my 4th grade uber nerd self.

You had your experiences. I had mine. What you see as a "deficiency" is really just opinion and perspective.

My two cents...

Quote from: Omega;805821What is this? Village Iidiot Day?

Its like they are crawling out of the woodwork to all post today.

And post #8 is precious too. How quaint.

Indeed. Send those guys to TGD, the average IQ needs to be moved up a bit, there.

OD&D is perfectly playable out of the box. It's not what I choose to play now. But it is perfectly playable as the game it is.

I don't think this fellow had the same goals in mind for achieving a fun good time that someone who might like OD&D has in mind. Even though he expresses it through ignorance, hostility, and poor diction, I try not to judge.

//Panjumanju

I don't mind a good rant, but it has to at least be coherent.  This guy's just all over the place, and wrong on top of being all over the place.  There's no point in dogpiling 'em, because there's no point in engaging 'em.

Leave the willful ignorant to his or her ignorance.

I'd rather invite the Llenlleawg guy, who typed a knowledgeable and level-headed response to that kid's (I can only assume it's a kid) wharrgarbling.

One thing nice about a computer RPG is that, if a player mods (homebrews) it wrong, the game will refuse to start or will crash often. Then you don't have to tell them how their idea of gaming sucks. The computer is proving it.

With pencil RPGs, you're dealing with people's imaginations of what good rules are or aren't. Hell, people fight over legal documents that they already read, agreed to, and signed at the bottom.

No, choose your battles. Only fight those worth fighting. The idiot in post #7 did himself in already as a suicide bomb.

He seems to believe having a ton of codified options makes a superior game, so, my guess is he's a "rules mastery" dude.

Let me just say that one of the things I like about this site is we can still dog-pile people here (including me if I'm being an idiot). I'm seeing more and more forums (non-RPG ones mostly) that are setting up "no dog-piling" rules and "no talking about offsite discussions" rules that are supposed to prevent their melodrama prone hugbox ninnies from spinning everything into an epic tragedy but in practice get too broadly applied and suffocate necessary conversation.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;805880Let me just say that one of the things I like about this site is we can still dog-pile people here (including me if I'm being an idiot). I'm seeing more and more forums (non-RPG ones mostly) that are setting up "no dog-piling" rules and "no talking about offsite discussions" rules that are supposed to prevent their melodrama prone hugbox ninnies from spinning everything into an epic tragedy but in practice get too broadly applied and suffocate necessary conversation.

Yeah, but it's usually nicer to dogpile on someone who is actually here, rather than hunt down their post and call for laughter over them, like a certain other popular dogpiling RPG thread in the Internet :rolleyes:.

Quote from: Rincewind1;805881Yeah, but it's usually nicer to dogpile on someone who is actually here, rather than hunt down their post and call for laughter over them, like a certain other popular dogpiling RPG thread in the Internet :rolleyes:.

Usually, yes. I don't think there's any real harm here, but the excesses certain other threads allow should be avoided, absolutely. I just don't want any suffocating blanket policies.

Perhaps we should invite this individual over for a conversation? :D Anyone want to PM him with a WotC account?

Quote from: Rincewind1;805881Yeah, but it's usually nicer to dogpile on someone who is actually here, rather than hunt down their post and call for laughter over them...

"Strikeforce theRPGsite"

//Panjumanju

I've been playing OD&D since the mid 1970's. And now I find out it's unplayable? Where was that guy when I first started? :)

Never played OD&D, but this post #7 does mirror my experience playing multiplayer Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, which were based on D&D 2nd edition* rules I think.

The fighter is the meatshield aka the tank, the cleric heals and sucks at damage dealing, the thief sucks and damage dealing and quickly dies, but you need someone for trap disarm and lock picking. You basically wanna play the mage, who is weak on low levels, but kicks ass on higher levels. Very unbalanced. We always played it like an MMO rpg. One tank, one healer and one DPS.

Edit: *Based on AD&D 2nd edition, not D&D 2nd edition. My bad. I don't really know the difference. That's before my time.

He's never played OD&D, he's parroting the "common idiocy" talking points of the extreme 3.5 charop sites.

Were the rules a "mess"?  Yeah, I'll give you that one.

Were the rules "unplayable"?  Seeing as how people have played with them for 40 years and it launched the hobby as we know it, I think the jury's not out on that one, I think it's pretty much axiomatic that the rules were playable, in fact, they had to be, or no hobby as we know it.

Pile on, you may as well argue with an old tape of the Wally George show.  Better use of your time.

The fuck'n elf had a beard you frakk'n morans!  Of course it's unplayable.

Quote from: CRKrueger;805937Pile on, you may as well argue with an old tape of the Wally George show.  Better use of your time.

Indeed. It's not the first stupid opinion to be posted on the internet, and we ain't Something Awful, so we don't need to give a shit.

If I had a nickel for every time...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;805938The fuck'n elf had a beard you frakk'n morans!  Of course it's unplayable.

It was an elven beard so its ok.

Quote from: Bren;805840OD&D is perfectly playable out of the box. It's not what I choose to play now. But it is perfectly playable as the game it is.

^^^^ This. 0D&D is a perfectly good game for Fantasy roleplaying. It's still one of my games of choice (...ahhh... Runquest, Fudge, Castle & Crusades) for running fantasy adventures and campaigns. It's fast, it's elegant, and in the hands of a good GM, DM or Ref a great deal of fun!

I haven't posted at WOTC since 2007 or so, when they deliberately worked hard to insult and purge the 0D&D Grognards that were still posting there, so can't say I'm surprised at the level of roleplaying ignorance displayed there these days.

Quote from: Panjumanju;805899"Strikeforce theRPGsite"

This morning, I fired up the Google Santa Tracker, and behold, Santa was in Pyongyang delivering presents to Kin Jong-un. This afternoon, I fired up the tracker again, and Santa and the Reindeer were dropping a load on Baghdad, and then they immediately bee-lined for Moscow after that to drop off presents for Putin. This evening I visited the Santa Tracker once more, looking for presents for my kids, and behold, Santa is finally getting close, on his was to San Juan, Puerto Rico... It's been a very busy day.

Quote from: CRKrueger;805937Were the rules "unplayable"?  Seeing as how people have played with them for 40 years and it launched the hobby as we know it, I think the jury's not out on that one, I think it's pretty much axiomatic that the rules were playable, in fact, they had to be, or no hobby as we know it.

The thing is, OD&D was never written for the beginner. It was written assuming that players had some experience with miniatures wargaming, and a lot of the "how to" stuff in newer games was simply never considered.

Nowadays rulebooks start out with "what are dice" and "don't forget to bring snacks to the game, wear deodorant, and help clean up the GM's basement after we play" stuff. If you don't already know these things, I guess OD&D could be considered "unplayable." ;)

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;805833I feel sorry for these people. It's like they feel they need written permission from the company before they can pop the hood on a game and start fucking around with it.

If I felt that way 90+% of all RPGs would be "Unplayable" to me.

EXACTLY.

But that's the attitude of so many gamers who came to the hobby in recent years: the ones who worship at the altar of RAW, for whom the term "house rule" is anathema, and who take the suggestion that they change a rule they don't like in much the same spirit as if you asked them what they more enjoy sodomizing, goats or sheep.

Of course they think OD&D is an unplayable heap of shit.  What other conclusion are they equipped to draw, if they have no idea they're supposed to apply common sense to what they don't understand, and imagination to what's just not there?  It's not that they're assholes or idiots.  It's just that they don't know any better.

Quote from: finarvyn;806013The thing is, OD&D was never written for the beginner. It was written assuming that players had some experience with miniatures wargaming, and a lot of the "how to" stuff in newer games was simply never considered.

Nowadays rulebooks start out with "what are dice" and "don't forget to bring snacks to the game, wear deodorant, and help clean up the GM's basement after we play" stuff. If you don't already know these things, I guess OD&D could be considered "unplayable." ;)

Not unplayable. Just not a novice friendly RPG. and there are tons of those, some written even recently. Some deliberately so.

This was one of the things I stressed was needed for Dragon Storm while I was working with the designers way back. The core game is while not novice un-friendly, is not novice friendly either. This was slightly addressed in the world books later.

I've also seen a small few RPGs that open up with lines like "This is not an RPG for a novice GM" or equivalent.

Quote from: Ravenswing;806099Of course they think OD&D is an unplayable heap of shit.  What other conclusion are they equipped to draw, if they have no idea they're supposed to apply common sense to what they don't understand, and imagination to what's just not there?  It's not that they're assholes or idiots.  It's just that they don't know any better.

My 3yo knows better. I went in to get him up the other day, his duvet was off his bed, bundled up on the floor, his stuffed toys gone somewhere, I heard a voice from between the quilt and the cover, "Papa, I in rocket!"

This morning, he was sitting up, the duvet around his hips, stuffed toys to each side of him, pillow on his lap. "Brmm, brmmm, papa I driving car!"

If only he had 576 pages of rules and options, he'd be having much more fun.

Now, this is not to say we need no rules at all. In the first place, many of us are not as imaginative as a child, we need a skeleton of rules and background on which we flesh out our characters and game world; but a skeleton only weighs about 1/7th the whole, the flesh and organs are 6/7ths. The greater weight of the thing must always be imagination.  

Secondly, later my son will play cops & robbers and so on. "Bang! I got you!" "No you didn't I'm only wounded!" Children will just argue and compromise or end up wrestling for it, as adults use the rules and dice instead.

Quote from: trechriron;805836A lot of us don't like the old D&D games. I appreciate some "older" games (BRP :-), but I won't touch 0e - 4e. I simply dislike them. Now, are they unplayable? That's a matter of opinion, which these people are sharing. Not facts. Just opinions. Everyone on the internet speaks their opinion like it's a truth.

Personally, I dislike D&D in general, the older editions especially. I DMed those games for many MANY years, so it's not from lack of experience. I just prefer different mechanics.

Now, that being said, I've seen some nifty OSR stuff that frankly I wish was around when I was trying to make D&D work for me. Nifty ideas. I came up in a crowd that were willing to combine things, but not revise or modify them. So, looking at the OSR today, it's pretty impressive to see the creativity of fans basically modifying the game I secretly wanted to modify myself. :-)

It's not unreasonable for someone who has played 3.x (a somewhat cohesive approach) to find 0e "unplayable". It's a matter of perspective. It depends on what games were your first.

I started with the red box set. It was a wonderful introduction to the game. Had I started with AD&D 1e or those little booklets, I may not have been as impressed. I programmed basic on the comodore 64. Played video games on my Atari 2600. If TSR wanted to grab my attention, they needed to bring their A game. Those Toys R Us commercials and the red box were perfectly targeted to my 4th grade uber nerd self.

You had your experiences. I had mine. What you see as a "deficiency" is really just opinion and perspective.

My two cents...

I also started with the Basic Rules (the red box) and I too can't stand how unbalanced and inconsistent the game is when looking at it now. What mechanics do you prefer? I have not played for a while, but Pendragon seems good to me. What do you think?

Quote from: trechriron;805836A lot of us don't like the old D&D games. I appreciate some "older" games (BRP :-), but I won't touch 0e - 4e. I simply dislike them. Now, are they unplayable? That's a matter of opinion, which these people are sharing. Not facts. Just opinions. Everyone on the internet speaks their opinion like it's a truth.

I kinda disagree. Not with your general statements regarding people treating opinions like facts, but with the specific instance of someone stating OD&D is "unplayable". That's simply not true, from any perspective. Many, many people have played it. For years. So it is playable, by any definition. That is, actually, a fact.

Quote from: TristramEvans;806567I kinda disagree. Not with your general statements regarding people treating opinions like facts, but with the specific instance of someone stating OD&D is "unplayable". That's simply not true, from any perspective. Many, many people have played it. For years. So it is playable, by any definition. That is, actually, a fact.

Presumably their definition of playable is either (a) a game they personally can play or (b) a game that everyone, everywhere can play.

Neither definition is at all useful, but lack of utility never seems to stop people from using their own ideosyncratic definitions when talking about RPGs.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806131Now, this is not to say we need no rules at all. In the first place, many of us are not as imaginative as a child, we need a skeleton of rules and background on which we flesh out our characters and game world; but a skeleton only weighs about 1/7th the whole, the flesh and organs are 6/7ths. The greater weight of the thing must always be imagination.  

Secondly, later my son will play cops & robbers and so on. "Bang! I got you!" "No you didn't I'm only wounded!" Children will just argue and compromise or end up wrestling for it, as adults use the rules and dice instead.

I think it is objectively provable that we don't need rules. I have played plenty of games, both as a child and as an adult, where we didn't have any mechanics or dice or formal rules - and still faced a lot of challenges and had a lot of fun. Cops and robbers is playable and complete, as demonstrated by thousands of kids actually playing it.

Someone could say that kids playing cops and robbers aren't playing a game because they aren't following formal rules - but then the same thing could be said of people playing OD&D who don't follow the rules-as-written.


So:  OD&D works as a game for some people; but then cops and robbers works as a game for some people. Some people *prefer* formal rules roughly as definite and complete/incomplete as OD&D - but that preference is no more objective than other people's preference for more complete formal rules like GURPS or D&D3.

Quote from: Bren;806583Presumably their definition of playable is either (a) a game they personally can play or (b) a game that everyone, everywhere can play.

Neither definition is at all useful, but lack of utility never seems to stop people from using their own ideosyncratic definitions when talking about RPGs.

I always felt that you can substitute the word "unplayable" with "I don't like it" and the message always seems clear.

As I noted before, if OD&D is so unplayable how could I have been playing it for 40 years? And enjoying the experience?

Quote from: jhkim;806600I think it is objectively provable that we don't need rules. I have played plenty of games, both as a child and as an adult, where we didn't have any mechanics or dice or formal rules - and still faced a lot of challenges and had a lot of fun. Cops and robbers is playable and complete, as demonstrated by thousands of kids actually playing it.

Someone could say that kids playing cops and robbers aren't playing a game because they aren't following formal rules - but then the same thing could be said of people playing OD&D who don't follow the rules-as-written.

So:  OD&D works as a game for some people; but then cops and robbers works as a game for some people. Some people *prefer* formal rules roughly as definite and complete/incomplete as OD&D - but that preference is no more objective than other people's preference for more complete formal rules like GURPS or D&D3.

I agree. I also enjoy Amber Diceless, which has two thick rulebooks but one could argue has almost zero rules. There aren't any combat charts, skill rolls, or other things traditionally filling up pages of most RPGs. What you have are examples. This led some folks to take ADRP and redo it as FATE or other rules with more structure. Not a bad thing, but a different style of play. It all comes down to preference.

Quote from: finarvyn;806678I always felt that you can substitute the word "unplayable" with "I don't like it" and the message always seems clear.

That would be definition (a). I suspect that is the sense that the poster was using the word playable.

Quote from: jhkim;806600I think it is objectively provable that we don't need rules. I have played plenty of games, both as a child and as an adult, where we didn't have any mechanics or dice or formal rules - and still faced a lot of challenges and had a lot of fun. Cops and robbers is playable and complete, as demonstrated by thousands of kids actually playing it.

You seem to be presuming that all play is playing a game. I don't think that is correct, i.e. I'd argue that some play isn't a game.

But I think that is unrelated to the question of whether OD&D is playable as a game. Based on the experience of tens of thousands of people (if not more), it is.

Hating on OD&D is like hating on your ancestor that gave birth to your great-grandmother and bombing on her for wearing skins and hides instead of Yoga-pants and a thong.

She is the mother of our hobby. Treat her with respect, even if you don't understand her.

Quote from: Arohtar;806565I also started with the Basic Rules (the red box) and I too can't stand how unbalanced and inconsistent the game is when looking at it now. What mechanics do you prefer? I have not played for a while, but Pendragon seems good to me. What do you think?

I have not played Pendragon, I have read some of it, and there's some great stuff in the game. I do like BRP and variations, but it works better with smaller numbers. I find using it to run battles with many people per side to be cumbersome. I should probably research a "mass battle" system for BRP. :-)

I am really enjoying HARP (revised) at the moment. There's also a Sci-Fi version. You can search The Googles for more info, I've made several posts regarding it recently.

Quote from: TristramEvans;806567I kinda disagree. Not with your general statements regarding people treating opinions like facts, but with the specific instance of someone stating OD&D is "unplayable". That's simply not true, from any perspective. Many, many people have played it. For years. So it is playable, by any definition. That is, actually, a fact.

I agree the language used is hyperbolic. I am sure what they mean is "I don't like games like this". They are just using insulting language to draw people into the a heated discussion. You can respond with the same level of insult or just share your experiences playing the games you love. Also, pointing out the OSR and games spawned from that enthusiasm would be another great point to support the "playability (= people liking the game)".

Also, people seem to be afraid to make rulings. There was a LOT of backlash coming up in the hobby about "GM fiat" and "rulings not rules". It seems to be coming back around, but for a LONG time that stuff was DIRTY WORDS (and naughty). D&D 3.x was really an attempt to codify the rulings and help get the "arbitrary GM making things bad-wrong-fun" out of the way. It doesn't work. I think we have some great resources out there to teach GM's (look at Kobold Press's awesome offerings for example...) and as more people step up to GM and focus on making a fun, exiting game, the bulk of the player population is going to relax and stop fearing the rulings.

Quote from: tenbones;806749Hating on OD&D is like hating on your ancestor that gave birth to your great-grandmother and bombing on her for wearing skins and hides instead of Yoga-pants and a thong.

She is the mother of our hobby. Treat her with respect, even if you don't understand her.

I'm on board with this.

I always think people go to far trying to balance the game.  The balance is campaign balance.  Played by the book you will see far fewer wizards make it to second level than fighters, and still fewer fighter magic-users because the versatility doesn't match up with the time frame.

I think the things that need to be done to older D&D to make it more approachable for beginners and younger players do include increasing hp at first level, giving magic-users more spells at lower levels and probably reducing how many spells they get at higher ones.

But I think more than that, somewhere, the mind set that you should expect to lose a number of characters, especially at lower levels and bad stats are simply cleaned up by attrition rather than re-rolls or points buy needs to be explained more clearly and up front by the DM.

Quote from: jhkim;806600I think it is objectively provable that we don't need rules.

We don't need rules to play, no. We do need rules to resolve disagreements about what's happening in the game.

QuoteCops and robbers is playable and complete, as demonstrated by thousands of kids actually playing it.

Sure. But maybe you're forgetting how many times kids wrestled each-other or stormed off home, etc. Now, this is a large part of the purpose of play for children, pushing the social envelope to find their limits. They learn how to deal with conflict with other people by engaging in conflict - and the conflict is not the shooting in cops & robbers, but the arguments about what happened.

That's children's play, a large part of it is pushing themselves physically, mentally and socially to improve their abilities and see where the limits are.

By adulthood the more useful of us will have more or less figured out social boundaries and methods of resolving conflicts, so we play for different reasons. Our needs are different, we don't actually want a lot of wrestling and arguments about nothing - well, some of us do, but that's what internet forums are for.

QuoteOD&D works as a game for some people; but then cops and robbers works as a game for some people. Some people *prefer* formal rules roughly as definite and complete/incomplete as OD&D - but that preference is no more objective than other people's preference for more complete formal rules like GURPS or D&D3.

To say "we need rules" is not to say, "we need detailed and exhaustive rules." Sometimes a rough sketch is enough.

I don't think we have to set OD&D on a pedestal.  We should recognize the amazing game it was, and how it created the hobby, but we don't need to pretend that it was some kind of perfect proto-game that was never improved upon.

Nah, thats the OSR peoples job dont ya know?

Quote from: RPGPundit;807331I don't think we have to set OD&D on a pedestal.  We should recognize the amazing game it was, and how it created the hobby, but we don't need to pretend that it was some kind of perfect proto-game that was never improved upon.

Agree with this. Streamlining the basics has been a great thing. However, I also think that some things considered improvements actually aren't.  Codification of minutiae via innumerable character add-ons and widgets, emphasis on "builds," has hurt the game more than helped it, IMHO.  (When do we go from "create" to "build?"  I feel there's a difference)

Quote from: RPGPundit;807331I don't think we have to set OD&D on a pedestal.  We should recognize the amazing game it was, and how it created the hobby, but we don't need to pretend that it was some kind of perfect proto-game that was never improved upon.

Improvement, or a lack thereof is an opinion. I see AD&D as a different game than OD&D not an improvement.

When one starts to think of additional rules complexity as something that "allows" more cool stuff to happen in the game, it is time to take a step back and ask why.

I see the Greyhawk supplement as a mixed bag. New spells, magic items, monsters, and ideas for tricks & traps are nice to have.

The additional rules regarding ability scores, especially the addition of exceptional strength wasn't an improvement IMHO. Once adopted, any fighter who didn't have exceptional strength was suddenly very sub-par compared to those that did. Likewise any magic user who didn't have an INT score in the uppermost ranges was suddenly doomed to suck compared to those that did.

The overall effect added little to the game except an arms race, bonus bloat nightmare that still exists to this day.

OD&D wasn't perfect by any means. No game really is, but not every new idea or addition is objectively an improvement either.

OD&D is one of the few editions of the game I have no exposure to or experience with (although if they ever put the PDFs back up, I may take a look). However, based on the various comments and reports from multiple sides, I get the impression that it is very much a product of a specific time and milieu, and if you're not part of or familiar with that time and audience, and the presuppositions of the game, you may very well find it partly or entirely difficult to understand--or 'unplayable'.

   OG's book may prove useful as a "Reader's Guide" or "Preface" to the game, assuming it isn't overly full of sophmoric humor and demands for fermented grain beverages. :D

Quote from: Omega;807340Nah, thats the OSR peoples job dont ya know?

Nah we just like playing it.

I don't think OD&D is the perfect game. Frankly its presentation sucks on multiple levels compared to later games. Beyond the the fact it was produced in the early 1970s.

I do think the fact that OD&D was developed by Gygax while running an active campaign is worth placing on a pedestal.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;807398OD&D is one of the few editions of the game I have no exposure to or experience with (although if they ever put the PDFs back up, I may take a look). However, based on the various comments and reports from multiple sides, I get the impression that it is very much a product of a specific time and milieu, and if you're not part of or familiar with that time and audience, and the presuppositions of the game, you may very well find it partly or entirely difficult to understand--or 'unplayable'.

   OG's book may prove useful as a "Reader's Guide" or "Preface" to the game, assuming it isn't overly full of sophmoric humor and demands for fermented grain beverages. :D

That true of OD&D as a product, that it was a artifact of its time. But as a game it very solid. For a better presentation of the rules there is Swords & Wizardry White Box, Delving Deeper and others. Add the Greyhawk supplement in and what you have is the base of D&D. Which can be found in a better presentation in the Sword & Wizardry Core rules.

All of these are free to download.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;807390Improvement, or a lack thereof is an opinion. I see AD&D as a different game than OD&D not an improvement.

The AD&D Monster Manual is basically an OD&D supplement on steroids. There are various OD&Disms throughout the book. But also a lot of new stuff in a greatly expanded statblock.

The PHB was a cleaned up compilation of OD&D plus supplements. Again with expansions in various areas.

The DMG is what truly made AD&D a distinct game, while some of it could found in various OD&D supplements the vast majority was new material.

Quote from: estar;807401I don't think OD&D is the perfect game. Frankly its presentation sucks on multiple levels compared to later games. Beyond the the fact it was produced in the early 1970s.

True. BX is the perfect game. :cool: