Hello-
I was wondering if you D&D fans can list for me the meanings of some of these acronyms that I see in D&D discussions:
OD&D 74 (original white box set D&D??)
Holmes
Mentzer
BECMI
AD&D (This one I get)
RC (Rules Compendium book ruleset??)
Moldvay
BX (Basic Boxed Set??)
Dragonsfoot
Otus box
OSRIC
Dragonsfoot:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/
Forums for Old School versions of D&D
Holmes/Mentzer/Moldvay: Various versions of the Basic D&D set, with variations in the rules. (Named for IIRC the editors.)
RC: Rules Compendium (the single book combination of Basic/Expert/Companion/Immortals.)
OD&D 74 (original white box set D&D??)-Original version by Gygax and Arneson, contained three books (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures); "White Box" actually refes to a later collector's edition released in 1978, but the term is sometimes mistakenly used to describe the original 1974 books
Holmes-John Eric Holmes, edited 1977 (I believe) version of Basic, only covers levels 1-3, intended as an intro to AD&D 1E
Mentzer-Frank Mentzer, edited the version that came out in 1983 (BECMI)
BECMI-The version of Basic D&D edited by Frank Mentzer, consisted of five sets (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal), each covering different character levels
AD&D (This one I get)-Ok
RC (Rules Compendium book ruleset??)-Should be Rules Cyclopedia, not Compendium, a compilation of the rules from Mentzer's BEC and M books, with a mini-gazetteer.
Moldvay-Tom Moldvay, edited 1981 version (BX)
BX (Basic Boxed Set??)-Moldvay's version of Basic, consisted of Basic and Expert sets, Basic covers levels 1-3, Expert covers levels 4-14
Dragonsfoot-website devoted to all editions of D&D prior to 3E
Otus box-I imagine this refers to a box set with art by Erol Otis, probably either Holmes or Moldvay, but not sure.
OSRIC-"Old School Reference and Index Compilation", from wikipedia "The purpose of OSRIC is to allow other people who create material that's compatible with the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, to describe it as "compatible with OSRIC": thus alerting potential users that it's compatible with first edition AD&D, without directly saying so and thus making themselves vulnerable to legal action."
Anyone, feel free to correct anything I got wrong.
Nope looks correct to me. (Why I said Rule compendium, no idea, it is Cyclopedia. It makes it easier to find on ebay.)
QuoteHolmes-John Eric Holmes, edited 1977 (I believe) version of Basic, only covers levels 1-3, intended as an intro to AD&D 1E
QuoteBECMI-The version of Basic D&D edited by Frank Mentzer, consisted of five sets (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal), each covering different character levels
QuoteBX (Basic Boxed Set??)-Moldvay's version of Basic, consisted of Basic and Expert sets, Basic covers levels 1-3, Expert covers levels 4-14
As was just eloguently pointed out by someone Will Douglas over on Grognardia http://grognardia.blogspot.com/ (comment in the No-Brainer post), officially speaking, there never was a "Basic D&D" at least not as Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, and Mentzer are concerned.
Holmes was just "D&D", the same with the Moldvay/Cook and BECMI, although they each a "basic" rules that covered the first few levels, the game as a hole was never officially D&D. Of course most people, myself included, commonly refer to these versions of the game as "Basic", but it's just interesting to note that the divide wasn't really Basic D&D vs. Advanced D&D. It was D&D vs. Advanced D&D.
Quote from: wulfgar;251278As was just eloguently pointed out by someone Will Douglas over on Grognardia http://grognardia.blogspot.com/ (comment in the No-Brainer post), officially speaking, there never was a "Basic D&D" at least not as Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, and Mentzer are concerned.
Holmes was just "D&D", the same with the Moldvay/Cook and BECMI, although they each a "basic" rules that covered the first few levels, the game as a hole was never officially D&D. Of course most people, myself included, commonly refer to these versions of the game as "Basic", but it's just interesting to note that the divide wasn't really Basic D&D vs. Advanced D&D. It was D&D vs. Advanced D&D.
You are correct. I use the term basic for lack of a better term to describe "not advanced". Some people also call it Classic.
To be a little more specific for the OP, the D&D timeline is as follows (again, correct me if I'm wrong):
OD&D (1974)
then it branches off into the Advanced" and "Non-Advanced" Trees
Advanced:
AD&D First Ed (1978)
AD&D Second Ed (1989)
There was an AD&D Second Ed, Revised, sometimes called Black Book AD&D (because the books were black, duh), I want to say in 1996
I'm not sure about the differences between First and Second Eds, having never really been a fan of AD&D, preferring the Non-Advanced line which was much lighter and easier. I do know that Second Ed is considered easier to read but but First Ed is considered to have more flavor (and was penned by Gygax himself).
Non-Advanced:
Holmes (1979)
Moldvay (1981)
Mentzer (1983)
Rules Cyclopedia (1991)
There were other editions put out that were not really different in content, just presentation. There were several differences between Holmes and Moldvay, less so between Moldvay and Mentzer, and the RC should be nearly if not totally identical to Mentzer
After all of this comes D&D Third Edition in 2000 (which really should have been called Advanced D&D Third Ed, but since the "Non-Advanced" line had died out, they dropped the word "Advanced"). This was followed a few years later (2003?) by Edition 3.5 which introduced minor changes, and finally was replaced by Fourth Ed earlier this year (which from what I've heard may be the most radical departure from the original yet).
In short, the Non-Advanced line is easier and quicker to learn, the Advanced line has more options but is more complicated. Third Edition is the successor to the AD&D line, and Fourth Edition is based on this line as well, but introduced several big changes.
I have read that there's one significant difference between RC and BECMI, namely the Immortal rules aren't in RC, although a separate book/set Wrath of the Immorals (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/wrath.html), was written to be added to RC.
Hrm, I just looked at the TSR catalog pages at the back of the Holmes PDF printout I had nearby and lo and behold it says Basic Dungeons & Dragons several times in the description for itself. Now Holmes doesn't say that on the cover or IIRC in the actual game text but the ad copy / catalog does. Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set or Basic Dungeons & Dragons when just buying the game book only.
And so does the printout of Empire of the Petal Throne. Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set.
additional: final page of Holmes, About the Editor section: "His versatility is further demonstrated by his valuable work on this volume for Basic Dungeons & Dragons". Anyone have an old Sears or TSR catalog handy? I think how Holmes was presented (including in The Dragon) may be key here than what was on the actual game box or rulebook cover.
QuoteThere was an AD&D Second Ed, Revised, sometimes called Black Book AD&D (because the books were black, duh), I want to say in 1996
You'll also see this sometimes called "2.5". My group called it "Player's Option" at the time, since that is what it said on the books.
Well I got lucky this weekend and happened into a used CD/DVD/Comics shop that also has a little gaming corner. There was a Moldvay box in excellent condition with B2 and rulebook and an set of yellow polyhedrals with crayon all for $9.99.
Here is a real history question? This dice set has a D20 that goes from 1 to 20. I have some originals that have 0-9 twice (and you colored only one set to signify the 11-20). Anyone know if this is correct for this box set. It seems odd that there would be a white coloring crayon with a yellow set of dice, but it seems original and the set appears unused.
Thanks
Tim
P.S. I am hoping my local group will want to explore the Caves of Chaos soon!
Quote from: timrichter9;252113Here is a real history question? This dice set has a D20 that goes from 1 to 20. I have some originals that have 0-9 twice (and you colored only one set to signify the 11-20). Anyone know if this is correct for this box set. It seems odd that there would be a white coloring crayon with a yellow set of dice, but it seems original and the set appears unused.
Moldvay likely would have come with a d20. I've seen orange, blue, green colors but yellow's certainly possible. The original milk-jug type plastic dice with 0-9 twice didn't last that long (they are crappy dice) and definitely by Mentzer / Gamma World / Star Frontiers d20s and/or the new ten sided d10s were in the boxed sets.
And yes, the newer dice sets had white crayons, despite often coming with lighter colored dice. I *think* there may have been some black or other color crayons but I've never seen any that came with TSR boxed sets.
(update: According to Acaeum (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/basic.html) looks like 6 dice (i.e. with d10 and d20) was standard for Moldvay on)
Some other pictures of earlier, though not the earliest, TSR dice here (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/miscpages/odd.html). 1981's the same year as Moldvay Basic. Looks like there were
yellow crayons, which I think would be worse than the white ones!