"D&D vs. AD&D, where do you stand?" Topic

I'm playing some D&D these days with my two boys and they are really enjoying the experience. But before I started playing I took some time and thought over what version of D&D to play. I'm an old hand and honestly versions 3.0+ never really did it for me… too super-heroic for my taste with all the feats and powers. I wanted them to play the D&D game that I grew up with.

So with that decided I started looking into the three "old" versions of the game: D&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2ed. In the end I decided to go with D&D starting with the red box and then moving my way up. I went with D&D because, honestly, I've never been able to really wrap my head around AD&D. When you start talking surprise, segments, and weapon speeds my head starts swimming. Those rules are just way too fiddly and when you toss out that stuff what are you truly left with? Classic D&D!

Granted, I'm not overly happy with the character class/races like the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, and many of the AD&D character classes are missing, but you do pay a price to get a fun and simple game. And honestly, the game play is fun, the rules are easy to learn, and many of the rules that would make-up AD&D are present in D&D, just in a more simple form. Heck, the game even has mass combat rules and naval combat rules. Great stuff. Plus you get Mystara! One of my favorite fantasy worlds ever. The deal sealer though is that you really only need ONE BOOK to play D&D: The Rules Cyclopedia! No DMG, PHB, DMG, and don't get me started about the piles of red and green books with tons of options. Just one book.

Anyway, where do you stand? Do you prefer AD&D with the complex and fiddly rules or do you like the tried and true, and simpler, D&D rules?

I played with the old 3 white books. That was D&D to me. we never had no fancy-schmancy "advancd" nonsense. No sir, never needed it.

Started with the White box, picked up the AD&D books asoon as they came out.

Started again with 4E with my kids, just as much DnD as before but easier to run as a DM

Fun any way with the right folks

I played D&D, then AD&D, ignored 2nd Edition, played a lot of 3/3.5 Edition and then switched to Pathfinder after 4th Edition was released… whoops, I'm rambling… ok, if I were going to choose between D&D and AD&D I'd choose D&D starting with the red box and moving on through the various boxes. The rules are simple and fun and they're enough new rules as you progress through the boxes to keep things interesting but not overly complicated… however, I'm heavily biased by nostalgia! It's been a lot of years since I played D&D…

I started with BECMI D&D, moved to AD&D 1e pretty fast. Personally I would say neither: I'm a fan of skill systems, which is completely absent in D&D and given a cursory outline as an optional expansion in D&D 1e (and mostly made core in 2e). Both games fail in the skill systems test. A real sticking point was when we played AD&D 2e for half a decade, skills very, very rarely factored in our games. When we switched to 3e skill use grew exponentially. This meets with my approval.

Then there is also the idea of making the character you want to play, not what the game rules say you must play. In D&D if you want to play a warrior with a bit of magical ability, play an elf. If you want to do the same but with some divine abilities, sorry, no luck. If you want to play a finesse fighter (i.e. a fighter that relies on skill and ability rather than as a tank) also your choices are limited.

If you really want to play a simple D&D-lite game, play one of the D20 D&D clones out there: same sort of gameplay, but without to-hit matricies or THAC0.

Damon.

If you don't like 'race-as-class' you could look at Basic Fantasy-which is a retro-clone of Basic/Expert D&D, with a few changes.
basicfantasy.org

OSRIC is very similar to AD&D with some of the stuff that 'no one' removed.
knights-n-knaves.com/osric

Labyrinth Lord, another retro-clone, paired with the Advanced Edition Companion creates an AD&D lite.
link

PDFs of all three are free. You can get print copies from Lulu.

Yep, red and blue and the other boxes. Simple is better IMO.

I've played in D&D, AD&D 1st, AD&D 2nd, D&D 3/3.5, and Pathfinder. I like them all and I'd play in any of them, depending on who's running it. I've played most in D&D 3/3.5, but Pathfinder is my current go to game for Fantasy RPG adventures.

Mystara is a good setting, I've kept all my Gazeteers for it. Love them. The Rules Cycplopedia is definitely a good book, but it's hard to find reasonably priced and good quality copies of it these days.

In no surprise to anyone who's read previous discussions, I'd go with the red box through black box D&D, too. I also have the Cyclopedia, and I agree it's a handy compilation- everything you need to play in one book. I'll also echo the praise for the Mystara setting. I have all the gazetteers, and in general it's an excellent setting for all types of campaigns (with the possible exception of the largely absurd "faux-Carribean" one, which went so over-the-top as to include a fantasy amusement park. :-P). Great system, and easily enjoyed by all levels and ages of players.

As for the class limitations, there's no reason you couldn't make some house modifications to permit multi class characters or demihuman clerics, etc, if those are what you want. It's your campaign, after all!

As Parzival said.

I got my step son and his school mates hooked on D&D, but I had sold my old books long ago. I picked up the new set and was blown away how complicated it had become. I just leave out a whole bunch of it, and they don't know the difference……DM prerogative :)

I've only played AD&D 2nd out of the options stated.

We tacitly ignored or changed things and details we considered as slowing down the game; surprise, weapons speeds, adjustments vs AC types, etc…

Like segments; we only used them as a mechanism to easily manage who takes action in what order in combat and that was it.

I used the D&D Modules, adapted them to AD&D 2d rules to run on game nights, and used an adapted Mystara as "my" world, but never played original D&D.

I started with original D&D, then blue box, then AD&D. Frankly, I preferred AD&D as it gave more options. I played it for about a year, then switched to Runequest.

I started with red box D&D (in fact Tunnels and Trolls was the first proper RPG I ever played) – my teenage RPG chums moved onto AD&D but I regretted that change. AD&D was WAY too complicated for my taste what with those huge manuals; give me the basic game any day. And I actually like the race as class thing.

I was led into AD&D early, though it was heavily houseruled and the PHB had just appeared, so I'd probably stick to that.
I've been thinking about trying earlier versions, but so far haven't really.

I played a lot of 3+e, and had lots of fun, and quite a bit of 4e, but in particular the latter turned me off. I wouldn't go for any today.

As for retro clones – they lack the pazazz and language I love.

D&D and the rules cyclopedia was the better integrated game from the start. AD&D was made up as you went and 2nd edition merely added more rules to the mix.

Yes you had more options in AD&D, but D&D stayed in line right up to level 36, whereas AD&D assumed that level 15-20 was pretty much the end of the line in most cases and most monsters (dragons were tailored to that level and not very scary if the party had enough levels) A single Master Set D&D dragon would eat the whole AD&D monster manual entries for lunch.

I did enjoy AD&D and in my youth foolishly believed it was the better set. I recently played a three year campaign with Pathfinder and while I have a soft spot for D&D and its strange quirks I grew increasingly tired of feats, and the many rules that tend to slow down the game. I think I'll always be partial to D&D and the crazy way it handles things, but I would prefer to play a streamlined version that doesn't feel like I'm doing homework.

At this point I would go for a D&D clone with a few updates, like basic skills and a 3.0 AC system.

Well I like the D20 thing but I garee that teh rest of the AD&D rules are un necessarily complicated.

Prefer ADnD with the Arduin Grimoire.
Go with Castles and Crusades.

I started with the Holmes "Blue Box" Basic D&D, and like many people played a bastardized version of Basic and Advanced until all the AD&D books came out, and then fit in what I liked as we continued to play the classic Basic adventure modules. I really don't think the lines between the versions were as clear cut back then as we tend to think now.

At any rate, I've had the same experience as you, especially when playing with my son and his friends. Much to my surprise, they really don't like big, complex tomes of rules. I remember my son's comment on looking over the 4e and Pathfinder books was something like "I already go to school … why do I need this?"

I highly recommend the following, in no particular order:

1. The free "clone" Labyrinth Lord, for a cleaned up version of everything Basic D&D, and with the Advanced Players Companion for a menu of AD&D type choices to blend in. Heck, download them for source material even if you keep your version of D&D.

2. The Adventurer, Conqueror, King system (ACKS), a new ramped up version of Basic D&D with some great twists on making the basic classes more interesting, and the best integrated long-term campaign system I've ever seen. It has a cheap pdf. It's my current favorite, and the kids' as well. Again, you could pick it up for source material.

3. Castles & Crusades was mentioned above, and it's actually a pretty sane "modernized" version of AD&D, but plays much closer to Basic in terms of complexity. Essentially, it's AD&D classes fit into a streamlined Basic D&D core. Pretty cheap hardbacks, often on sale, and well supported.

4. Even if you don't like Pathfinder (3.5e), the Pathfinder Basic Box is frankly the best intro set since the Red Box, and well worth picking up. Most of the 3e complexity is stripped out, and the presentation and components are first class.

Cheers,

Christopher

We went around it an odd way – started with Basic to see if it was fun, found it was. Advance came out a couple of months later, shifted to that although one of the group also got the white box and we used elements of that util all the AD&D books were out (PH, DMG, MM). We moistly used our own dungeons, but did have a few modules and they were a mish-mash of D&D, Basic D&D, Expert D&D and AD&D – but mostly D&D and AD&D. Where there were contradictions we used AD&D.

D&D was a mess to use as a reference, and had so many little pamphlet add-ons. The cleaned up Basic D&D (levels 1-3, and Expert (4-7 ??) in my opinion were a good introduction if one wasn't sure the game was for one but in the long run were just a distraction – sure they cleaned up D&D, but they were always going to be a dead-end design wise.

AD&D was so clean and simple – the DMG covered just about everything, was a big read for the DM but no problem for anyone else. Once the DM had got a grip of the guide there were probably 10-15 pages that got used a lot, and a lot of stuff one just needed to beaware of in case of a dispute. And one could amuse oneself designing artifacts of power that were NEVER going to get into the hands of the players.

Didn't like or want or feel any need for AD&D 2.0 and beyond. Really don't like the miniatures heavy approach of later versions.

If you just want to teach your kids about unfairness and arbitrary punishment, D&D and/or AD&D are great for that.

Otherwise, there are plenty of actual RPGs on the market.

Honestly, if you want the former, Paranoia is probably even better, and at least it;s forthright about it.
-Kle.

I prefer the early 90s D&D, with the BCEMI reprints, Rules Cyclopedia, and board game size starter sets.

Neither – all versions of D&D are a mess of pointless rules.

I've come to see the quirks as a feature rather than a bug. I used to hate them.

It actually adds to the world in ways that many newer more streamlined systems fail to do.

I started with AD&D. I think that I enjoyed that more than basic, the few times I've played basic. I like that any race can be any class and that there are fewer limitations. I haven't played the most recent versions of either, just going back to how it was in 1st edition in the 80s.

I started with White Box and played the original Basic DnD (Blue Book). I played AD&D 1st through College extensively. I've also played 3.5 and 4.0. I would like to play Castles and Crusades because it is similar to White Box (Still my favorite).

I like AD&D because it was an unwieldy monster that nonetheless crackled with creativity on every page. For all of Mr. Gygax's ramblings on the pages of the DMG, it was the stuff he *didn't* say that helped me as a DM bring my campaign world to live. All the hints, winks and things left unsaid in the margins -- really fantastic. As others have said, it was truly "lightning in a bottle."

I went from D&D to AD&D 2nd to "The Fantasy Trip" and then GURPS and never looked back.

2nd edition AD&D for me mostly becuase I loved the Forgotten Realms setting (although Birthright was cool to)Mystra never really did it for me.

Played in the early 80's as a kid with my brother and Dad as DM. We quickly made the leap from basic D&D to Advanced D&D. AD&D was better written and gave you more options. Rules that made combat too complicated, like weapons speed factor, were just ignored. AD&D 2nd edition cleaned up some of the overly complicated combat rules.

If I was to run D&D, I would run basic, not advanced. I would also probably play a retro-clone like Labyrinth Lord. If you want the more advanced classes like AD&D Labyrinth Lord has the Advanced Edition Companion that uses all the fun stuff from the Advanced game and puts it into the basic rules. The games are free. So everyone can have a copy of the game or print out the parts they need. There are VERY few changes from Labyrinth Lord to basic D&D so you can use all the old modules.

Basic Fantasy Roleplaying:
Free PDF available online. 10 USD print copies. All in one rulebook.
Essentially Basic/Expert classic D&D with the following differences:
AC is not 'backwards'
Gold-pieces do NOT automatically translate into XP.
Character race and class are kept seperate.
This is the version that I would play, if I were going to play 'D&D' again.
(I would have liked to have seen the 'spell-slots/memorization' system ditched, but you can't win 'em all…)

The current D&D 3.0/3.5/4.0/4.9… has as about as much to do with the original D&D concepts and rules as 'Warhammer 40,000 v3/4/5/6… have to do with 'W40K:RogueTrader' or Traveller:TNE/GURPSTraveller/and Traveller:d20 have to do with the original 'black books'… (that is: a name)

Sounds like fun.

Myth & Magic, a brand new AD&D 2e retroclone/revision, is my new favorite. It cleans up the organizational nightmare of original 2e, includes some of the ideas of the 2.5e Player's Option splatbooks, and revises the mechanics with the 3x ascending armor class, difficulty checks, skill checks (revising proficiencies), etc. Very, very backwards compatible, surprisingly, and plays like an "advanced" Castles & Crusades.

Never been fond of complex race and class rules, limits imagination too much, or too much detail in combat mechanics. Trying to "realistify" rpg combat doesn't work for me, so no AD&D fan.

I've played every edition of D&D starting with white box. All were fun because I was with a fun group of players.

Each successive rule set in the series D&D / AD&D / AD&D2 was an improvement in the sense of one book having the rules for more of the things you would need to do. We dropped D&D once AD&D was out but intermixed AD&D2 with AD&D. The DM would decide which chart to use in his game. The AD&D2 approach to clerics never worked for us.

The Basic sets I never had any use for as they were supposed to simplify the game for beginners and we were never a group of beginners. Even with new players, we just brought them up to speed on our rules.

Of that era, I actually found the AD&D2 Oriental Adventures to give the best game as a stand alone book. The designers were able to discard the preconcepts of Fighter/ Mage/ Cleric/ Thief, an armor system that required complete suits of armor, and backwards compatible spell lists. Of course you could argue that system was AD&D 2.5.

We almost always rationalized the to hit system into one base chart with modifiers written on the character sheet. I called my version THALO (To Hit Against Level 0); it's the same idea that became THAC0 and later the D20 system mechanic. When the formula a chart is based on is obvious and easy to calculate on the fly, there's no real need for the chart.

And always throw the to hit dice and damage dice at the same time. Say "if a 14 hits I do 7 points" and move on to the next player.

I stopped playing D&D in 1984 when I got Car Wars. I have not idea on what edition.
I started a 3.5 game for my family about 5 years ago and am digging it again.

I didn't get into playing D&D until later in life, partially because my gaming interests are more scifi-based and because my Mom--who came from a long line of Bible beaters--fell into the whole "Satanic Panic" of the early 80s and forbade me from playing it. By the time I was old enough to tell my mother where to stick her family's fundamentalist delusions, I had lost interest in role-platying and had gotten into miniature wargaming. After college, RPGs started to become appealing again. I played a little 3rd Ed, mainly as an outgrowth of playing Traveller 20.

Then the Old School Movement started to pick up and there was a lot of amazing material being put out by fans of the old games. I was soon exposed to the variants of OD&D, both editions of AD&D, various retro-clones, and, my favorite, original Empire of the Petal Throne. Each new "clone" I encountered added new ideas for house rules. Some of the best sources include Swords & Wizardry and Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

As an aside, it would be worth noting that 'D&D' and 'AD&D' are pretty darn similar to begin with… any argument in favor of one or the other is really splitting atoms, and there is no reason why the GM can't modify/mix and match as he sees fit. Seems like most people have done this to some extent. The 'old' D&D was all about that (unlike the new 'we all have to be playing the same tome of min/max power gaming rules, because this is a MMORPG style competition' type game that 'D&D' has become…. sound familiar?)
IMHO, there are better RPG systems out there, but old D&D (and 'AD&D') still have that nostalgic value despite all their flaws, and are great for starters.

"where do you stand?"

Over to the side with the Pathfinder folks, but knowing that all of the D&D extended family (including Pathfinder) are just the LCD of role-playing.

You know, without D&D, back in 1974, and the later versions (AD&D was hugely successful), there would not be an RPG industry. Just sayin'…

To answer your question, I started with Basic D&D, blue boxed set, progressed to AD&D, a few months later (got to 3rd level, and then we were stuck); progressed to 2nd Ed. AD&D in 1989, when it came out. Loved it! Still playing it, have been an avid AD&D'er since 1980, plan on playing it in the retirement home in 30+ years.

Enjoyment, for me, comes more from the players and GM's interactions, than any rules set. The game mechanics/rules, for me, take their place within the background. Games which focus more on the rules, and less on the interactive story-telling, tend, IMO, to be a more mechanically related style of gaming. Nothing wrong with that, if you enjoy it. Cheers!

My first exposure was the blue box set. My brother older had purchased it, couldn't figure it out and gave it to me. My first real group used AD&D which is still my favorite. It was of course heavily house ruled which to me if a big part of the attraction to the game.

I never really found AD&D to complex. In fact, I had most rules memorized including all the combat charts, monster stats and usually I knew where in the books to find the rule if it needed clarification.

When 2E came out we just incorporated the ideas we which we liked into our ongoing campaign. Anything after this point just seemed like superheros to me. I'm definately in the minority in that I enjoy a low to moderate level of power. I do not need to be triple specialised with my weapon to be a good player and have a good game.

While I have never played 3.0 & up I do have the books through 3.5 I felt this was the point it started to just get "over-skilled". To hear current players talk it seems difficult to discern who is a fighter or a magic user or what? They all have so many skills that linger on the fringe of other classes they all seem the same to me. A guy at work who is playing 3.5 (I believe) qouted me the amount of damage he did in a combat and I turned to him and said… well, that would have wiped out our entire party in AD&D! Do higher numbers/bonuses really equate to more enjoyment?

The best part of AD&D, and RPG's in general is that if you don't enjoy or agree with the rules in the books you find a common ground within your group and agree upon a rule that makes sense.

Do higher numbers/bonuses really equate to more enjoyment?

That does seem to be an attitude prevalent with new or younger players-- back when I first started playing (in my early teens), we couldn't wait to get high enough level to roll huge amounts of damage. It's part of the typical "Monty Haul" reaction of the munchkin gamer, where high numbers and fancy powers are the draw. But as we gained experience and maturity in the game, we began to appreciate subtler adventures with the focus on role-play and tactics, and the numbers became unimportant except as utility elements in the system.

I looked for Myth & Magic on line and don't seem to be able to find a supplier. Any sources recommended?

We mixed our D&D with our AD&D quite a lot back in the day. They played pretty much like the same game anyway. Especially since we didn't bother with things like weapon speeds and adjustments vs AC type. I'd still play either if offered.

Currently I'm keen on Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG to recapture some of that old school feel. I especially like the dangerous magic. Very well done Sword and Sorcery vibe to it. DCC RPG is based on the B/X (Basic/Expert) books using the D20 "engine".

We mixed our D&D with our AD&D quite a lot back in the day. They played pretty much like the same game anyway. Especially since we didn't bother with things like weapon speeds and adjustments vs AC type.

Those were the days. "Balance" was not spoken of in polite company, kitbashing your game from multiple sources was the norm, and far more than half the game was in the heads of the players.

Our group recently decided to add a new game on alternate weeks… there was a big discussion with lots of games on the table. My first choice, Call of Cthulhu, was not an option (long story…).
So I pushed as much as I dared for Dark Heresy with Mekton as a second choice… the GM has a soft spot for Dark Heresy so I had hope…
Without much surprise they decided to go with AD&D 3.5 (I'd put my foot down on 4e).
I'd really hoped that if they HAD to go to D&D they'd go with one of the OSR versions… OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, LotFP… but nope… it's AD&D 3.5.

I'd really rather play basic old D&D… what the hell are 'feats'?

Pathfinder for me. And I have played almost all versions starting in 1976. The only one I have never played was 4.0 Took one look and walked away.

But, if somebody sets up a game in any of the older games I will still go back and play once in a while.

owen

Oh, and feats are down on the end of them leags!

Owen

I feel old. My first encounter with D+D was at Origins. It had just come out. Three booklets in a brown box that had someone on a horse in vaguely Roman armor. Within a year or so it was selling in a white box with a wizard zapping some low level monsters on the cover. I didn't get to play at Origins but I did get to pick up a copy of the Greyhawk supplement. My group always just used the rules as a starting point. I stopped playing in 1984 the year I got married. Will always remember that Origins for introducing me to that type of game and because I managed to get my name in the old Avalon Hill publication The General for taking second in Flying Bufaloes Imperialism tourney. Not to hijack the thread but Imperialism was a fun beer and pretzels game.

"Oh, and feats are down on the end of them leags!"

On the other hand, we were using feat-like abilities as house rules in the 80s with AD&D1.