| Author | Topic: Basic D&D (Read 155 times) |
webwarlock Global Moderator
     member is offline
Joined: Dec 2008 Gender: Male  Posts: 6 Karma: 0 |  | Basic D&D « Thread Started on Apr 28, 2009, 10:22am » | |
Like a lot of people my age (40ish) I cut my D&D teeth on Basic D&D.
While I moved on to big games and spent the vast majority of my D&D time in 1st Ed AD&D, Basic D&D still holds a spot in my heart.
I guess so we are all talking about the same games here is a handy little guide from The Acaeum, http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/basic.html and http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/expert.html
For years the Basic (8th Printing) and Expert (1st Printing) Sets shaped what is D&D to me. So imagine my fan-boy glee when new games like Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy are now readily available.
Curently I own 3 complete Basic (5th, 8th and 9th) sets and 1 complete Expert set (1st), any extra set of expert books (2nd) and the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.
What is you favorite version of Basic D&D? Which of the newer Basic clones do you like the best?
Tim
| Tim Brannan, web.warlock@comcast.net The Ghosts of Albion RPG Availble Now at DriveThruRPG! "I know that Tim and Garner did a bang up job on it. They've really created an amazing universe to play within!" – Amber Benson on the Ghosts of Albion RPG in “Sirens of Cinema” Vol 2. Issue 14 |
|
drsamsara New Member
 member is offline
![[avatar]](http://forum.rpg.net/customavatars/thumbs/avatar9514_1.gif)
Joined: Oct 2008 Gender: Male  Posts: 43 Karma: 0 |  | Re: Basic D&D « Reply #1 on Apr 29, 2009, 8:13pm » | |
For Basic, I have hard time choosing between the Holmes and the Moldvay. If I had to choose, I guess Moldvay, but it's close.
For retro-clones, Labyrinth Lord. BFRPG is actually very nice, but just doesn't scratch the itch quite right, if you know what I mean.
| |
|
Jason Vey Administrator
     member is offline
![[avatar]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/avatars/redcreature.gif)
Joined: Aug 2008 Gender: Male  Posts: 250 Karma: 3 |  | Re: Basic D&D « Reply #2 on Apr 30, 2009, 8:36am » | |
I'd have to go with Labyrinth Lord at this point (Moldvay/Cook). If I'm going to play Holmes I may as well just play OD&D (not that that's a bad thing, mind).
| Jason Vey, President Elf Lair Games Web: http://www.grey-elf.com e-mail: elflair (at) grey-elf (dot) com "I will say this just once: GARY NEVER USED MINIATURES!!!" --Old Geezer, RPG.net |
|
danbuter New Member
 member is offline
Joined: Mar 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 10 Karma: 0 |  | Re: Basic D&D « Reply #3 on May 7, 2009, 9:51pm » | |
I prefer Moldvay for the originals. For the retro clones, I prefer BFRPG, for the ascending AC.
| --Dan http://home.comcast.net/~danbuter/ - My Castles & Crusades and Savage Worlds fan site |
|
islestrike New Member
 member is offline
Joined: May 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 13 Location: Upper Canada Karma: 0 |  | Re: Basic D&D « Reply #4 on May 11, 2009, 10:47pm » | |
Hmmm ...very interesting question. If we are talking "sets", and from a purely biased and nostalgic view, then I go with Holmes. The Holmes Basic with chits was the first D&D thing I owned.
Moving on as a collector and still talking "sets" then I still throw in with Holmes ...to me it best captures that early primordial essence of D&D. I particularly like Homes edition when it comes with B1 "In Search of the Unknown" instead of the later B2 mod. Also even earlier sets with the Geomorphs + Monster&Treasure Assortment are interesting time capsules of that nascent D&D period.
From a rules point I'd have to agree with Jason. Holmes is a cleaned up version of OD&D with and explicit Combat and Initiative & Movement sequence spelled out. Holmes is good for understanding OD&D, so might as well play OD&D. Plus there are some weird things in Holmes, like every wise player running around with a dagger. I'll give the Moldvay/Cook the edge on rules. I like for example how all the Monsters have their "saves as" rating included, whereas you have to figure this out in Holmes. If I take out the larger attribute bonuses in Moldvay/Cook, then I'd say it is a fine set of rules.
Same answer for the retro-clones. I like (prefer) S&W, but only as a good reference for OD&D. If I actually play a retro clone it will be Labyrinth Lord. Plus you can play with less power inflation with the "Original Characters" supplement, so right there I think it is a better "complete" package.
Cheers!
| |
|
bluskreem New Member
 member is offline
Joined: May 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 13 Karma: 0 |  | Re: Basic D&D « Reply #5 on May 24, 2009, 12:33pm » | |
For years I preferred RC, but recently LL has replaced it as my game of choice. I loved having Weapon Mastery, general Skills, domains, and Siege rules all in one place but when I actually got to thinking about it, I honestly can't say I've ever been happy with any of them in actual play. We've modded or completely replaced most of the subsystems in the games I play, or simply ignored them.
When a few people in our group started talking about switching to Labarynth Lord I was skeptical at first, but I was won over. LL has everything I want in my D&D games in one easy reference place.
Since Converting we've used LL for a few Mystara games, Carcosa, and a Homebrew Genetech world called Allele. I'm just finishing off the Allele campaign in the next week or so, and thinking of running a game based on Changeling the Lost and Original Edition Characters, but i might out it off until Advanced Ed Characters comes out and decide if that suites the game better.
| |
| |
|