Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;630524That's strange.

From this link (emphasis mine):

I think it's because Mentzer had the majority of the Player's book in Basic as a hand held walk thru.  I think it's excellently written for a new player, but Moldvay never had such an in depth walk through

Rules-wise Moldvay B and Mentzer B are almost identical - there's a difference in how many spells magic-users and elves have in their spellbooks (in Mentzer they get Read Magic for free) and maybe a minor difference or two in the combat procedures that I can't recall offhand. The main difference is the presentation - Mentzer's set has close to double the pagecount, because it spends a lot more time explaining things in a narrative step-by-step fashion - the Player's book has a ~20 page introductory solo adventure to teach the rules before it gets to the "reference book" material (spell descriptions, equipment price lists, XP tables, etc.) from the Moldvay book. Likewise the Mentzer DM Book starts out with a sample adventure including step-by-step instructions for what the DM should do, followed by a big FAQ-type section discussing various topics that tend to come up and giving advice on how to handle them before finally getting to the monster & magic item descriptions and dungeon-stocking tables.

The Moldvay set is a handier reference because it's more straightforward and compact; the Mentzer set is a better teaching aid - give it to someone who has no idea what D&D is and by the time they finish reading the first book they'll be able to play, and by the time they finish the second they'll be able to DM. But rules-wise they're interchangeable and you can easily have people using both at the same table.

It's at the X level where the two versions begin to diverge, because Mentzer recalibrated (i.e. slowed down) thief skill and m-u and cleric spell progressions (and possibly the saving throw tables?) to better fit the intended 36-level arc, and also held back some of the higher level spells (and monsters?) from the Cook/Marsh X book for the Companion Set. If you've got people at the same table trying to use these two sets together there will be some conflicts starting around level 7 or 8.

Also, the art style is different between them - the Moldvay/Cook versions have art by Erol Otus, Jeff Dee, Bill Willingham, and David Laforce; the Mentzer versions' art is by Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley. Many people who like one dislike the other, in both directions.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;630524That's strange.

From this link (emphasis mine):

Perception's a bitch, ain't it?  I guess my opinions aren't the right ones.

I note I'm wrong regarding some of the other objective points in that overview.  I think the layout in B/X is better, but how could that be, especially when faced with such evidence as a post on stackexchange!

The Moldvay and Mentzer sets both feel like they're addressed to kids to me, at least as compared to the Holmes set and AD&D. The tone of the Mentzer set feels a little more condescending because it spells everything out step-by-step and frequently addresses the reader in the second person, whereas Moldvay's tone is more impersonal and seems to trust the reader to figure things out on his own (or, probably more likely, ask a more-experienced player), but that also makes the Mentzer set a lot easier to understand, so it's a trade-off. I'd guess they're both written at about a 4th grade reading level (fitting with the cover recommendation for "ages 10 & up").

I can attest that as an oh-so-sophisticated 11-year-old I considered AD&D the real "adult" game and dismissed both of these sets equally as intro-level kid-stuff that I had "outgrown," and everyone else I knew and played with felt the same way. It was only on the internet in the 2000s that I came across anyone who actually continued to play these versions into adulthood over AD&D.

Quote from: TAFMSV;630469Here you go, from the "Moldvay, Mentzer, Holmes: What's the Real Difference?" thread.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=359515&postcount=16

That's an awesome summary from T.Foster.  However, I think that it is somewhat incorrect with respect to the relation between Basic D&D and AD&D.  My understanding is that Gygax planned to maintain D&D and AD&D as distinct lines, with D&D maintained as the game more appropriate for folks who like to house rule stuff, and AD&D as the more 'standardized' variant (although this may not have been sorted out when the Holmes basic set was published).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630495I prefer B/X myself, but that's probably because I prefer the shorter books so it's easier to find what I'm looking for, and I prefer the artwork.  To each his own.

The artwork in B/X in superior to that in Mentzer by several orders.

Even as a teenager, I remember thinking that the Elmore cover was 'childish' in comparison to the eerie, otherworldly nature of the Otus cover.

Quote from: Akrasia;630658That's an awesome summary from T.Foster.  However, I think that it is somewhat incorrect with respect to the relation between Basic D&D and AD&D.  My understanding is that Gygax planned to maintain D&D and AD&D as distinct lines, with D&D maintained as the game more appropriate for folks who like to house rule stuff, and AD&D as the more 'standardized' variant (although this may not have been sorted out when the Holmes basic set was published).

Yeah, I think that decision came after the Holmes set (which consistently refers readers to AD&D for more details & higher levels and only mentions OD&D in a historical sense) had been published. IIRC Gygax first mentioned it in a Dragon editorial around the time the AD&D DMG was being published, almost two years later.

My guess (and that's all it is, I have no inside info) is that in that interim Arneson had filed suit and Gygax's explanation for why they're keeping both lines is a retroactive justification for something they were obligated to do anyway by terms of their settlement with him. He may also have been responding to negative fan reaction from some OD&D players who didn't like feeling they were being "forced" to upgrade to the new edition (sounds familiar...).

But certainly both the introductions to the AD&D books themselves and all the editorials in The Dragon from when they were being developed up through the release of the PH portray AD&D as an improved/upgraded direct successor to OD&D that was intended to replace it, and the old game was being maintained in print solely as a historical/collector's curiosity (in one of the editorials Gygax makes a comment to the effect that "sure we're keeping OD&D in print, because people are still buying it and we'd be dumb not to").

I had no problem with the RC, and I don't think its as dry as others make it out to be.

RPGPundit

I think the Mentzer set is still the best RPG product ever created to hand to a grade-school kid as a RPG gateway.  

We alternated between D&D and AD&D depending on the size of the group.  We used BECMI when we had 6+ players, as we felt like it "flowed" faster.


I know both Steve Marsh & Frank Mentzer have threads over on Dragonsfoot talking about their projects, and why they were done the way they were done.
IIRC (and I may be in err here), Frank wrote the intent was for BECMI to be a separate line, not a lead-in to AD&D.  He also confirms the settlement with Dave required this.

He expected 1-36 to take ~8 years of regular play, but included the section on balancing encounters to give the DM a tool to change the pace as needed.


There is a lot of good stuff over there, but you really have to work to find it.  The posts aren't in any kind of order, so you have to scan them all to find the best bits.  Frank, frex, has something like 5,000 posts by himself.  Most the best info he offered was 2004/2005, if that helps narrow your search.

Quote from: RPGPundit;631168I had no problem with the RC, and I don't think its as dry as others make it out to be.

RPGPundit

The Thief skills are my major break with the RC.  The 36 level progression was simply too slow and led to a long period of high failure chances.  They were creative enough to give high level fighters new options and avenues of improvement -- why not do the same for the Thief?

Quote from: Votan;631422The Thief skills are my major break with the RC.  The 36 level progression was simply too slow and led to a long period of high failure chances.  They were creative enough to give high level fighters new options and avenues of improvement -- why not do the same for the Thief?

You and everyone else who has a problem with BECMI. If they had stuck with the Companion Rules hints in Cook/Marsh Expert - that thieves would gain new skills and abilities as the existing list topped out - I think there would be less of a B/X vs. BECMI/RC divide.

Quote from: Vile;631546You and everyone else who has a problem with BECMI. If they had stuck with the Companion Rules hints in Cook/Marsh Expert - that thieves would gain new skills and abilities as the existing list topped out - I think there would be less of a B/X vs. BECMI/RC divide.

True, after all the differences between the editions are otherwise quite slight.  Even more puzzling to me, this was the direction they took with Fighters, adding in all sorts of cool combat maneavers like smash (and, indirectly, with demihumans, who also got some of the Fighter combat maneavers as part of the attack rank kludge).  

But the Thief class had bad HD and the slower progression for basic abilities gets painful after 20th level when the wizards (with almost the same hit points and combat ability) can do so much more.

Quote from: SJBenoist;631221He expected 1-36 to take ~8 years of regular play, but included the section on balancing encounters to give the DM a tool to change the pace as needed.

Interesting. For our group it took a bit under half that long (playing once a week, for about 8 hour sessions on average).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;632122Interesting. For our group it took a bit under half that long (playing once a week, for about 8 hour sessions on average).

Well, he probably assumed 4-hour average sessions

Quote from: T. Foster;632151Well, he probably assumed 4-hour average sessions

That would make sense.