# D&D Older Editions



## haakon1 (Dec 30, 2021)

Huh, “D&D Older Editions” is now its own forum under “General Tabletop Discussion“.

It seems the official position is: If ain’t 5e, it ain’t D&D.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 30, 2021)

An...interesting choice. Basically ghettoizes discussion of anything other than 5e, which is less than ideal IMO. But I guess that's just how it's gonna be.


----------



## BigZebra (Dec 30, 2021)

On the other hand, if the earlier editions, are what makes you tick, now you can limit yourself to that, and not be burdened by all the 5e posts.


----------



## John R Davis (Dec 30, 2021)

Hmm. Not sure. They will still be plenty of crossover, as they are 95% similar.


----------



## GuyBoy (Dec 30, 2021)

Happy enough with the change. I play 5e now but can come here to grognard-out on memories of Original and 1E.


----------



## JustinCase (Dec 30, 2021)

It's a lot easier to find 3.x stuff now at a glance, because that's what I play a lot besides 5e. I like it.

No, I don't think it's now "official" that older editions "aren't D&D"; that's just reading what you want to read into this. It's literally in the subforum title: "*D&D* older editions". (To be fair, it would be elegant to add "5E" somewhere in the original subforum description, but that's nitpicking.)


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 30, 2021)

Seems like a logical way to structure things to me.  (shrug)


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2021)

haakon1 said:


> Huh, “D&D Older Editions” is now its own forum under “General Tabletop Discussion“.
> 
> It seems the official position is: If ain’t 5e, it ain’t D&D.



What an odd thing to say. It literally says “D&D” in the subforum name. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> An...interesting choice. Basically ghettoizes discussion of anything other than 5e, which is less than ideal IMO. But I guess that's just how it's gonna be.



The exact opposite. The idea is to encourage discussion without having those threads immediately buried under a million 5E threads.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 30, 2021)

Morrus said:


> The exact opposite. The idea is to encourage discussion without having those threads immediately buried under a million 5E threads.



Nice theory.

I suspect, however, that the practice will be that this sub-forum gets very little traffic and not many new threads. (though I'd be happy to be wrong in my suspicions).


----------



## LoganRan (Dec 30, 2021)

BigZebra said:


> On the other hand, if the earlier editions, are what makes you tick, now you can limit yourself to that, and not be burdened by all the 5e posts.



This.

I was really pleased to see this new sub-forum so that I can more easily find the thread topics of greater interest to me as someone who prefers the older editions (B/X and 1E) of the game.

NOTE: One thing that I did notice is that this forum cannot be directly reached via the "forum list" under the Community tab at the top of the web page which is how I generally get to forums. Will the forum list be updated to make a direct connection to this forum possible?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 30, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Nice theory.
> 
> I suspect, however, that the practice will be that this sub-forum gets very little traffic and not many new threads. (though I'd be happy to be wrong in my suspicions).



Yeah, it's been my experience that this is exactly what happens in other boards. Fork out the "old" stuff and sure, it doesn't get buried under a ton of other things. Instead it never even gets the chance to be seen in the first place.

Not that I think there's a _better_ way, to be clear. There really isn't one, it's an unwinnable situation. Getting drowned out in the vast ocean of more popular topics, or dying in obscurity in a subforum that won't get but a tiny fraction of the attention that the "active, living" edition forum does. (Consider, for instance, that the oldest front-page thread on the PF forums is from August 7, nearly five months ago. The oldest thread on the front page of the 5e/General D&D forum is from merely five _days_ ago.)

The only exceptions to this trend that I've seen were either "forking out the active, living edition from an even broader forum" (e.g. pulling D&D out of tabletop RPGs in general) or, being relatively blunt, "3.X + Pathfinder," since PF reinvigorated the 3rd edition community that might otherwise have moved on.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Dec 30, 2021)

Morrus said:


> What an odd thing to say. It literally says “D&D” in the subforum name.
> 
> The exact opposite. The idea is to encourage discussion without having those threads immediately buried under a million 5E threads.



There's no pleasing anyone these days. Threads for older editions get ignored and buried, even if the topics being discussed are applicable to other editions. But moving them out of the way just makes them easier to ignore. Double-edged sword? We'll see how this goes.

I do have some questions. I started two recent threads regarding Reavers of Harkenwold and Iron Circle.  They are 4e products, but I categorized them as D&D General since there was more to do with adventure/campaign design and system-neutral information.

If D&D General applies to all editions, why is it exclusive to the primary (5e) D&D forum?

Would it be possible to make Older Editions a subgroup under D&D?

Are any of us ever truly happy with D&D?

No pressure. Answer as best you can. Thanks.


----------



## Yora (Dec 30, 2021)

The 13th age tag is still in the current  D&D section. It's a 4th edition derivative, right?


----------



## DarkCrisis (Dec 30, 2021)

Advanced  D&D is best D&D.  It’s own forum is fine IMO.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 30, 2021)

I just click on the "Community" button, so that I can see all recently-active threads. So long as stuff from this new sub-forum appears there, I suppose it's not too much of an issue.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 30, 2021)

I always figured that's what the tag search function was for. Old Editions forums elsewhere just tend to atrophy and die because no one thinks to look for it


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 30, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> I just click on the "Community" button, so that I can see all recently-active threads. So long as stuff from this new sub-forum appears there, I suppose it's not too much of an issue.



I do the same thing.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Dec 30, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> I just click on the "Community" button, so that I can see all recently-active threads. So long as stuff from this new sub-forum appears there, I suppose it's not too much of an issue.



Oh! So you're saying why do we have forum groups at all? Problem solved, I guess.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 30, 2021)

BigZebra said:


> On the other hand, if the earlier editions, are what makes you tick, now you can limit yourself to that, and not be burdened by all the 5e posts.



You could already do so by filtering the tags.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 30, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Nice theory.
> 
> I suspect, however, that the practice will be that this sub-forum gets very little traffic and not many new threads. (though I'd be happy to be wrong in my suspicions).




You have to go galaxy brained!

Take your old topic from an older edition. 
Tie it into 5e!

Anger the blood of both the fans of 5e and older editions. Keeping the topic alive indefinitely.

Profit?


----------



## GuyBoy (Dec 30, 2021)

Thank you, @Morrus for taking the time to run these excellent forums. I’m happy with whatever change you see fit to make.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 31, 2021)

Yora said:


> The 13th age tag is still in the current  D&D section. It's a 4th edition derivative, right?



To the extent that one of its lead designers was the lead designer of 4e....I guess? But it was a joint effort of both Rob Heinsoo (4e) and Jonathan Tweet (3e). I would not call it "derived from" 4e any more than I would call Dungeon World "derived from" BD&D or AD&D even though those are explicitly references used to make it.


----------



## haakon1 (Dec 31, 2021)

John R Davis said:


> Hmm. Not sure. They will still be plenty of crossover, as they are 95% similar.



A lot of D&D posts do seem edition irrelevant, but I suppose non-5e specific content is confusing for newer players.


----------



## haakon1 (Dec 31, 2021)

Morrus said:


> What an odd thing to say. It literally says “D&D” in the subforum name.



Sorry Morrus.


----------



## aco175 (Dec 31, 2021)

I cannot remember the last time I looked at a sub-thread and not just clicked on the Community button to see al the newest threads.  Although, I do tend to just play 5e and not any of the older editions.


----------



## David Howery (Jan 2, 2022)

Morrus said:


> The exact opposite. The idea is to encourage discussion without having those threads immediately buried under a million 5E threads.



which I appreciate.  I've nothing against 5E in general, but I'm long out of gaming and like to reminisce about 'the good old days'.  My main interest in this forum is stuff from 1E and 2E, and it's nice having it in one place...


----------



## Orius (Jan 2, 2022)

BigZebra said:


> On the other hand, if the earlier editions, are what makes you tick, now you can limit yourself to that, and not be burdened by all the 5e posts.



Which is a good thing, because I have little to say about 5e.  Most of the interesting stuff was being buried under that.  Besides, we used to have separate sections for earlier editions here before anyway.


----------



## RavinRay (Jan 3, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> Hmm. Not sure. They will still be plenty of crossover, as they are 95% similar.



Exactly! Now that I'm reading _Fizban's Treasury of Dragons_ there's material there, specifically for gem dragons, that I can adapt into the full 3.5 gem dragon update I made ages ago, as well as a hypothetical 3.5 _Draconomicon II_ that focuses on the gem dragons and _Monster Manual_ lesser dragons.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jan 3, 2022)

I had to rethink how I categorized some of my recent posts and had to explain why I needed to move it in my own thread. (No need to repost everything, you can read it here). Now I keep thinking about this change.

Will the older editions get a *D&D General* tag for topics that aren't edition specific? Or is the tag only good for the other folder, which begs the question: Is that folder specific for 5e or D&D in general? 

Ugh! So many questions...


----------



## kenada (Jan 5, 2022)

I was also worried at first the change would reduce the traffic to threads related to older editions, but it seems like they’re more active. Or maybe they always were, and I never noticed because they were buried under all the 5e ones.

What exactly constitutes a variant though? Would OSR-adjacent games like WWN or SWN count?


----------



## teitan (Jan 5, 2022)

Ignore me like a buttercup that has a spot of bird waste on it, I am tainted. ;-)


----------



## Blue (Jan 5, 2022)

Yora said:


> The 13th age tag is still in the current  D&D section. It's a 4th edition derivative, right?



One of the lead designers of 13th Age was Rob Heinsoo, the lead designer of 4e, and there are some mechanical concepts brought over, like Recoveries (= Healing Surges) and Staggered (= Bloodied).  But the other lead designer was our @Jonathan Tweet who was also one of the lead designers of 3.0.  Together you have a game that is neither 3.x nor 4e, but notably combines concepts with various editions of D&D as well as an awareness of where the industry has moved to in order to make a streamlined d20 system they described as "A love letter to D&D".

If I had to compare, it plays closest to D&D 5e.  But it also had the liberty to modify some sacred cows that would have been untouchable under the D&D label.  Really, it's my favorite D&D-like game.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 2, 2022)

Morrus said:


> What an odd thing to say. It literally says “D&D” in the subforum name.
> 
> The exact opposite. The idea is to encourage discussion without having those threads immediately buried under a million 5E threads.




So, just to clarify something that came up in another thread about this with @Oofta.  Is the D&D General tag under D&D essentially "all editions", while the 5e tag would just be 5e?

Thanks!


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 2, 2022)

Cadence said:


> So, just to clarify something that came up in another thread about this with @Oofta.  Is the D&D General tag under D&D essentially "all editions", while the 5e tag would just be 5e?



I saw this coming weeks ago.


Jacob Lewis said:


> Will the older editions get a *D&D General* tag for topics that aren't edition specific? Or is the tag only good for the other folder, which begs the question: Is that folder specific for 5e or D&D in general?


----------



## DataDwarf (Feb 3, 2022)

I guess my questions is;
Why are threads discussing material from _older editions_ in the _Dungeons & Dragons_ forum not being moved into this, _D&D Older Editions_, forum?

Seems that this is where the would belong as they are specifically discussing material from the older editions.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 3, 2022)

DataDwarf said:


> I guess my questions is;
> Why are threads discussing material from _older editions_ in the _Dungeons & Dragons_ forum not being moved into this, _D&D Older Editions_, forum?
> 
> Seems that this is where the would belong as they are specifically discussing material from the older editions.



Are they solely discussing older editions? Or 5e and older together?


----------



## DataDwarf (Feb 3, 2022)

This thread, _"Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D_, is specifically a discussion regarding a module released for 2ed AD&D.

Then there is the thread, _Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?_, in the TTRPGs General forum that is specifically discussing Oriental Adventures from 1ed AD&D.

Specifically discussing materials from older editions, seems to me, to belongs in the Older Editions forum. I'll admit that I may be missing some nuance, and if I am I would like to better understand when a discussion regarding older editions should be in this forum vs one of the others.

edit: grammar


----------



## infinityman (Feb 3, 2022)

I'm still not confident I ever ran this game correctly TBH. We always took the "guidelines" part more seriously than the rules.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 4, 2022)

DataDwarf said:


> This thread, _"Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D_, is specifically a discussion regarding a module released for 2ed AD&D.
> 
> Then there is the thread, _Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?_, in the TTRPGs General forum that is specifically discussing Oriental Adventures from 1ed AD&D.
> 
> ...




I think you can ask for threads to be moved. But not in this thread, apparently.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 4, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> I think you can ask for threads to be moved. But not in this thread, apparently.



Yep.  It would probably be more effective to send a private message to a moderator.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 4, 2022)

DataDwarf said:


> I guess my questions is;
> Why are threads discussing material from _older editions_ in the _Dungeons & Dragons_ forum not being moved into this, _D&D Older Editions_, forum?
> 
> Seems that this is where the would belong as they are specifically discussing material from the older editions.



If the thread was tagged as D&D General before the sub forum was created, then it didn't automatically migrate. I had to request a couple of my own to be moved over manually in the Meta forum, and they were eventually moved. But they were _my_ threads I created; I don't know that I would feel comfortable asking for someone else's threads to be moved for them.


----------



## Orius (Feb 4, 2022)

DataDwarf said:


> I guess my questions is;
> Why are threads discussing material from _older editions_ in the _Dungeons & Dragons_ forum not being moved into this, _D&D Older Editions_, forum?
> 
> Seems that this is where the would belong as they are specifically discussing material from the older editions.



I'm sure the mods have _plenty_ of time to scour 20 years worth of threads and migrate stuff over here.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 4, 2022)

haakon1 said:


> Huh, “D&D Older Editions” is now its own forum under “General Tabletop Discussion“.
> 
> It seems the official position is: If ain’t 5e, it ain’t D&D.





EzekielRaiden said:


> An...interesting choice. Basically ghettoizes discussion of anything other than 5e, which is less than ideal IMO. But I guess that's just how it's gonna be.



I wish "D&D Older Editions" was broken down further into forums such as:
OD&D and OSR OD&D Compatible
Holmes Basic and OSR Holmes Basic Compatible
B/X and OSR B/X Compatible
BEMCI and OSR BEMCI Compatible
AD&D 1e and OSR AD&D 1e Compatible
AD&D 2e and OSR AD&D 2e Compatible
3e
4e


----------



## Akrasia (Feb 4, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I wish "D&D Older Editions" was broken down further into forums such as:
> OD&D and OSR OD&D Compatible
> Holmes Basic and OSR Holmes Basic Compatible
> B/X and OSR B/X Compatible
> ...



I agree that lumping all pre-5e D&D together is infelicitous (given how radically different the TSR-era games are from the later editions). But your list is far too fine-grained IMO. 

A sub-forum for "TSR-era D&D" (and associated "OSR clones") would suffice for OD&D, B/X, AD&D, etc. While there are important differences between these games, they all share many key features and are broadly compatible with each other (back in the day, we used B/X modules with AD&D 1st edition, etc.).

3e should be combined with Pathfinder into a separate sub-forum (3e, 3.5, PF 1e, are all related in much the way that the different TSR versions of A/D&D are).

4e is it's own thing.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 4, 2022)

We have 200K members and every single one of them would organise the forums differently!


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 4, 2022)

I tend to concur that this single "older editions" sub-forum should suffice for pre-5e and for retroclones of pre-5e editions.

That being said, yeah, I agree that the Orcs of Thar (supplement to BECMI Basic D&D) and Oriental Adventures discussions probably do belong in here.  No need for moderators to go back through 20 years of old threads, but if there's a current, active thread about an older edition getting new posts on the first page of another sub-forum, that should probably be moved here.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 4, 2022)

Morrus said:


> We have 200K members and every single one of them would organise the forums differently!



Fair. But now you have some members who are generally confused about what to do with these changes that were a) never discussed, b) decided by someone else, and c) wasn't expected or announced. I'm not saying the change was good or bad, but it was sprung up on everyone and now there are some legitimate questions that haven't been addressed yet. So maybe it wasn't going to be as easy as you hoped? Sorry about that. 


Mannahnin said:


> That being said, yeah, I agree that the Orcs of Thar (supplement to BECMI Basic D&D) and Oriental Adventures discussions probably do belong in here.  No need for moderators to go back through 20 years of old threads, but if there's a current, active thread about an older edition getting new posts on the first page of another sub-forum, that should probably be moved here.



I haven't read those threads, but I want to offer some suggestions for the general problem rather than the specific.

The Orcs thread was tagged as D&D general, which suggests to me that the topic could be applicable to any edition. If the discussion is focused only towards that edition, then it probably would've been tagged differently and migrated over automatically. 
The Oriental Adventures thread is actually listed in TTRPG General forums, not D&D. That also looks like a deliberate choice when the thread was created.
Either way, I think it is up to the individual author who creates the thread to decide where it goes, or the admins and mods if they feel it necessary to move it somewhere that is more appropriate.
The best way to get your own thread relocated right now is just make a polite request in Meta. And be patient.


----------



## Orius (Feb 8, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I wish "D&D Older Editions" was broken down further into forums such as:
> OD&D and OSR OD&D Compatible
> Holmes Basic and OSR Holmes Basic Compatible
> B/X and OSR B/X Compatible
> ...




The last time ENWorld had separate subfora for previous editions, some of them had little traffic at all.  Anything pre-3e doesn't get a lot of attention in the first place, since Dragonsfoot and the other old school oriented boards generally get people who want to talk about those editions anyway.  And some of those versions of the game like Holmes probably wouldn't be worth a subforum anyway.


----------



## bmfrosty (Feb 23, 2022)

It's better this way.  Easier to find B/X content without swimming through a sea of 5e.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 29, 2022)

Orius said:


> The last time ENWorld had separate subfora for previous editions, *some of them had little traffic at all.*  Anything pre-3e doesn't get a lot of attention in the first place, since Dragonsfoot and the other old school oriented boards generally get people who want to talk about those editions anyway.  And some of those versions of the game like Holmes probably wouldn't be worth a subforum anyway.



And that seems to be what's happening here again.

One thread active today (other than what I'm doing to this one), one yesterday, another's last activity two days ago, and the rest all inactive since last week.

Yet in both the 5e forum and TTRPB-General lots of people still have lots to say about older editions...because that and TTRPG-General are the only places anyone is looking.

Conclusion: current trends indicate this re-org may not be working quite as intended.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Mar 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> One thread active today (other than what I'm doing to this one), one yesterday, another's last activity two days ago, and the rest all inactive since last week.
> 
> Yet in both the 5e forum and TTRPB-General lots of people still have lots to say about older editions...because that and TTRPG-General are the only places anyone is looking.
> 
> Conclusion: current trends indicate this re-org may not be working quite as intended.



On the one hand, I agree with this assessment as I predicted something like this would happen. However, I can see the benefit of not having these threads buried under a daily avalanche of 5e topics. The problem is a lot of threads (and by extension, people who post those threads) are not being placed in the appropriate folder. And no one is trying to enforce it, either. So how can we fix that?

The only thing I can suggest is people need to be more active and post something in those threads to point them here. Nothing rude, just a little nudge, like "Wouldn't this topic be more appropriate in the Older D&D froum?"

Then again, people may be aware alreary and make the conscious desicion not to post in the folder that gets very little traffic. So maybe we just need more posts in here to stir up traffic. 

Anyone got any better suggestions?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 30, 2022)

You can always report threads in the wrong forum and we can move them.


----------



## David Howery (Mar 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Yet in both the 5e forum and TTRPB-General lots of people still have lots to say about older editions...because that and TTRPG-General are the only places anyone is looking.



I've noticed that too, yet.... a lot of it seems to be discussion on older editions vs. 5E, so it's debatable where they belong....


----------



## Orius (Apr 2, 2022)

David Howery said:


> I've noticed that too, yet.... a lot of it seems to be discussion on older editions vs. 5E, so it's debatable where they belong....



That would be the main forum, but it should be tagged D&D General.  That's appropriate for anything edition neutral or involving multiple editions.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 2, 2022)

Orius said:


> That would be the main forum, but it should be tagged D&D General.  That's appropriate for anything edition neutral or involving multiple editions.



What we don't know is how many people would never even see a thread if it wasn't tagged D&D 5e, as that's all they look for.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 9, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> What we don't know is how many people would never even see a thread if it wasn't tagged D&D 5e, as that's all they look for.



I wonder if people who started playing in 5e are afraid of earlier editions, because of the dire content warnings about them.


----------



## Cadence (Apr 9, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> What we don't know is how many people would never even see a thread if it wasn't tagged D&D 5e, as that's all they look for.




It feels like the "Dungeons and Dragons" "D&D General" get some participation too, (so not just the "Dungeons and Dragons" "D&D 5E".     

The "Dungeons and Dragons" forum is 5e welcoming - even with the "D&D General" tag.  The "Older Editions" is 5e discussion keep out.


----------



## DarkCrisis (Apr 9, 2022)

haakon1 said:


> I wonder if people who started playing in 5e are afraid of earlier editions, because of the dire content warnings about them.



I believe older editions are considered “overly complicated” which I could debate.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 9, 2022)

haakon1 said:


> I wonder if people who started playing in 5e are afraid of earlier editions, because of the dire content warnings about them.



The only complaints I've ever heard about older editions from newer players are (1) it's hard to find players willing to give them a try, and (2) it's harder to find resources and gaming material for older editions.

And until today, I've never heard anyone use the word "dire" to describe content warnings, such as the Legacy Content disclaimer.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 9, 2022)

haakon1 said:


> I wonder if people who started playing in 5e are afraid of earlier editions, because of the dire content warnings about them.



I highly doubt it.

If anything, the content wearnings might prompt some to take a look and find out what the fuss is about.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 9, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> The only complaints I've ever heard about older editions from newer players are (1) it's hard to find players willing to give them a try, and (2) it's harder to find resources and gaming material for older editions.



(1) is almost certainly true in most communities.  (2), however, is not so true: between all the OSR material out there, founts of online resources such as dragonsfoot, and generally-wide availability of secondhand rulebooks and adventure modules, finding resources and materials ain't that difficult if one bothers to look.


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 9, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> however, is not so true: between all the OSR material out there, founts of online resources such as dragonsfoot, and generally-wide availability of secondhand rulebooks and adventure modules, finding resources and materials ain't that difficult if one bothers to look.



Not only that. A huge part of the old TSR catalog is legally available in PDF and many products are also in POD. Furthermore, there are tons of products being produced in the OSR-sphere. I'm sure, for example, that there are more levels of mega-dungeons available than anyone will be able to play in a life-time.


----------



## Audiomancer (Apr 10, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I highly doubt it.
> 
> If anything, the content wearnings might prompt some to take a look and find out what the fuss is about.




Hot Take: If you want more people in your area to check out older editions, try to get your local library/school board to ban them…


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 10, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> (1) is almost certainly true in most communities.  (2), however, is not so true:



Oh I agree, that's just what I've heard folks say about them.  True or false, older systems do have a reputation for not being as well-supported as 5E.


----------



## Orius (Apr 10, 2022)

The content warnings probably have little to do with it.  Likely the reputation for being difficult, complex or exceedingly deadly is what keeps newer players away.


----------



## Yora (Apr 11, 2022)

There is no thread tag for Basic/Classic, only OD&D and AD&D. That's the one that's still the most popular.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 21, 2022)

Yora said:


> There is no thread tag for Basic/Classic, only OD&D and AD&D. That's the one that's still the most popular.



You mean most popular on ENWorld, or most being played?  I assume 3.5e, 2e, and AD&D/1e/OSR are now, and have always been, played more than Basic/BECMI.  I could be wrong.


----------



## Cadence (Apr 21, 2022)

haakon1 said:


> You mean most popular on ENWorld, or most being played?  I assume 3.5e, 2e, and AD&D/1e/OSR are now, and have always been, played more than Basic/BECMI.  I could be wrong.



Wasn:r a ton of B/X sold?  There might be a blip in 1981-1982.


----------



## Mannahnin (Apr 21, 2022)

Holmes Basic then B/X sold a ton, and then BECMI took it worldwide to a greater extent.  That whole line sold millions.  While the OSR started out with a lot of focus on 1E AD&D, in recent years B/X and its clone OSE have been the most popular variant.


----------

