# BD&D vs. AD&D



## Bullgrit (Jan 7, 2009)

With all the discussions, comparisons, and wars over the years between the new D&D system(s) and the old D&D system(s), there’s one discussion, comparison, and war that I don’t remember ever seeing.

Which do you think was the better D&D game system: Basic D&D or Advanced D&D? Why?

They were both in print/publication and play at the same time (which is unique among the numerous editions of the game), but they were distinctly different versions of the game – the makers of the game said so.

I’d be interested in reading a discussion comparing and contrasting these two editions of the game (and just these two editions). Which one do you think had the better rules, better adventure modules, better settings?

Can this discussion be had without bringing up any other edition of the game?

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 7, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> With all the discussions, comparisons, and wars over the years between the new D&D system(s) and the old D&D system(s), there’s one discussion, comparison, and war that I don’t remember ever seeing.
> 
> Which do you think was the better D&D game system: Basic D&D or Advanced D&D? Why?
> 
> ...




For me, it depends on what I want out of a given *D&D* game.  Firstly, by "Basic" *D&D* I assume you're referring to everything up until (and excluding) the *D&D RULES CYCLOPEDIA*.  While a "form" of Basic, it really had a life of it's own above and beyond.

Now with that aside...

Basic *D&D* is, for me, good for a quick bash-up.  I didn't find it as feature-rich as *AD&D*, despite going into the higher levels.  *AD&D* has a lot more going for it in the module department, character classes, spells, treasures, campaign worlds and general support.

With that said, certainly, there are rules aspects of Basic *D&D* that are less onerous than *AD&D* - but as I have unwound the complexities of *AD&D* I have found the utility of things like spell-casting time, weapon speed, and so forth to be very handy.  There are times when no, I don't want to "just handwave" things with regard to those issues.  That's where for me *AD&D* shines.  

Basic *D&D* is good for a quick three or four sessions every once in a blue moon, plus, as with all versions of *D&D* it can be mined for ideas and inspiration.

Peripherally, it and *AD&D* are tied for coolness of artwork; I view TSR *D&D* artwork from that era as all on equal footing because it was all largely from the same artists: Trampier, Otus, Dee, LaForce, Sutherland and to a lesser degree Elmore.



[/font]


----------



## Wicht (Jan 7, 2009)

I was introduced to the game with basic using an advanced module.  My first purchase was a boxed basic set.  When I finally bought the advanced rules books, I never went back to basic, though I played advance using basic and expert modules.  I prefered having more choices, which I felt the advanced ruleset allowed me


----------



## Vorput (Jan 7, 2009)

Aww... a comparison thread without a poll?


----------



## Voadam (Jan 7, 2009)

I played and enjoyed a lot of AD&D but by the end of my AD&D experiences I was seriously considering switching over to Basic for my choice of rule sets.

I prefer straightforward mechanics and the disparity of bonuses that high stats in AD&D gave (particularly for percentile strength versus say a 16 or 14 strength) started to grate on me. Similarly I wanted the simplified damage set for weapons of basic over the idiosyncratic charts of AD&D.

I liked a lot of nonweaon proficiencies that came out for AD&D but I was less happy with the proficiency system. I want fighters to be good with medieval weapons, whether it is a mace or a sword or a bow. AD&D gave penalties for non proficiency and super specialist mechanical bonuses which were not the way I wanted fighters to be.

AD&D though had switch class and multiclass mechanics which were nice as well as more class (monk, assassin, illusionist, druid, paladin, ranger, etc.) and race options (Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, Gnomes, UA races) in its favor as well as more material put out for it and that I owned. AD&D also had Demon Lords and Archdevils running around.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 7, 2009)

I started with Basic. (The big black boxed set with the guy fighting a red dragon.)  Had a ton of fun with the game, and then started playing AD&D at a hobby shop on another night. Stuff from AD&D started creeping into our basic game, and then after a while we just decided to switch.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 7, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> With all the discussions, comparisons, and wars over the years between the new D&D system(s) and the old D&D system(s), there’s one discussion, comparison, and war that I don’t remember ever seeing.
> 
> Which do you think was the better D&D game system: Basic D&D or Advanced D&D? Why?
> 
> ...




When I was a kid, I always thought of Basic D&D as the game for kids and AD&D as the game for adults. Basic D&D was fun, but the true "fun" would be with all the complexity that AD&D offered just in their PH and DMG alone. Now that I'm an adult and I look back at those systems, I just see two systems. 

Nowadays, I can play either game as a one-shot with no big deal, but I haven't played Basic D&D is years and stopped playing 1e AD&D when 2nd ed came out and of course, stopped playing 2nd ed when 3.0 came out.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 7, 2009)

Finally! Battle is joined!

Always played AD&D...in hindsight, some B/ED&D rules were better...and plenty of people used some of them in AD&D. (or at least omitted certain AD&D rules so that there game was more like B/ED&D). But AD&D had the adventures, the options, and style. Loads of it.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 7, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> For me, it depends on what I want out of a given *D&D* game.  Firstly, by "Basic" *D&D* I assume you're referring to everything up until (and excluding) the *D&D RULES CYCLOPEDIA*.  While a "form" of Basic, it really had a life of it's own above and beyond.




Curious, why do you exclude the Rules Cyclopedia?


----------



## Betote (Jan 7, 2009)

I like more Basic because it's very light, very easy to fudge and very expandable (and I can use the AD&D modules with it). Advanced was better for campaign play but, as nowadays I find 3.x better than AD&D for campaign play, it has no spot on my gaming schedule.

My "D&D scale" would be 3.x > Basic > 4e > Advanced (2 >1).


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 7, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Curious, why do you exclude the Rules Cyclopedia?





Essentially because one, it's not "basic" by name any longer and two, it added some things (prestige classes) that really mark a sea change for me.

Note that I don't say it isn't *D&D*, just not _basic_ *D&D*.

Mentzer Basic, post *EXPERT D&D* is the same way.  You get into the *COMPANION, MASTERS,* and *IMMORTAL* rulesets and things just really start to go far afield from the stock and trade definition of "basic *D&D*".


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Jan 7, 2009)

I love the character creation in 3.5, and I also admire the extra flexibility and Greyhawk-inspired magic items in the two AD&D editions.  But for game-play, nothing beats OD&D for me (Mentzer edition).  The game just moves at a quicker pace while I also feel enboldened to use my imagination as the rules and speed are easily manipulated.  Strangely enough, I'm not a huge fan of the older editions or the Rules Encyclopedia.  There are some tweaks in the RC that took away from the Mentzer sets.  And I like the small extras Mentzer added to the original rules, such as weapon specializations...

In fact... if someone asked nicely I might be tempted to do a first level, Mentzer red book PbP here that takes place in The Wilderlands of High Fantasy.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 7, 2009)

I think the problem is the confusion between the earlier B/X Basic and later BECMI/RC Basic.  Weapon Mastery, Name Level Classes, etc.  the dungeon delver has a major point, except I don't think the OP was talking about B/X.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 7, 2009)

2edD&D was a good system to start play... aka Holmes D&D. and 3edD&D... aka Holmes D&D after an addition of a module to the boxed set.

1edADnD was too much. although it was the natural progression of what Supplement I Greyhawk (1975) had started. the switch in focus to building up your ability scores so you go more of a bonus. and the arms race it lead too. the powergamers wet dream that is D&D now.

moldvay basic and cook expert were fine too.

everything after that which Frank M touched was just 1edADnD's powergaming in a different package


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 7, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Essentially because one, it's not "basic" by name any longer and two, it added some things (prestige classes) that really mark a sea change for me.
> 
> Note that I don't say it isn't *D&D*, just not _basic_ *D&D*.
> 
> Mentzer Basic, post *EXPERT D&D* is the same way.  You get into the *COMPANION, MASTERS,* and *IMMORTAL* rulesets and things just really start to go far afield from the stock and trade definition of "basic *D&D*".




Fair enough. For a game derived form the "basic" line of D&D, it did get remarkably complex and deep.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 7, 2009)

I barely played BD&D, we always played 1e, but looking back on it, BX & BECMI was a far better written and better structured system, rules-wise.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 7, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Fair enough. For a game derived form the "basic" line of D&D, it did get remarkably complex and deep.




it perpetuated what was wrong with the game.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jan 7, 2009)

I've played them both.  I had always thought that AD&D was better for low to mid level play and that BECMID&D was better for high level play especially with Dominion Rules, War Machine, and Paths to Immortality.  I never liked the race as class rules which weakened in the Gazetteer series and AD&D just had more classes, more magic items, more equipment, more spells, and more monsters (though the creatures, spells, and items unique to BECMID&D were cool).  Also the Expert Rules were great for wilderness gaming and have rules in them that still have yet to be covered by any other edition (like Rivers increase or decrease daily travel by 1d6+6 miles per day when going by boat).  And the weapon mastery rules kept fighters from fading into the background or becoming grogs.  And when the Immortal Rules came out I replaced my AD&D gods with D&D Immortals since they were far more powerful.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jan 8, 2009)

> Can this discussion be had without bringing up any other edition of the game?



The first mention of another edition of the game came in the 6th reply. Please, folks, let's not muddy the waters by bringing in other editions in this thread. Thanks.



> I don't think the OP was talking about B/X.



What makes you think this? In fact, when I think of Basic D&D, I think of the 1981 B/X duo. I actually know very little about the later versions of Basic D&D.

Bullgrit


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 8, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> What makes you think this? In fact, when I think of Basic D&D, I think of the 1981 B/X duo. I actually know very little about the later versions of Basic D&D.




BECMI is pretty much B/X, but with a level cap of 36 rather than 14. It also adds some optional sub-systems, dominion rules, immortality for super-high PCs, and a lot more monsters.

IMHO, its BD&D 2nd edition, as it is as close to B/X as 1e is to 2e.


----------



## Taureth (Jan 8, 2009)

AD&D.   

I found BD&D fun to browse through, but never had any desire to play it, particularly.    

As some one who prefers playing demi & semi human characters, and spell casters, I just found the classes, races and spell lists of Basic too limiting (particularly if you consider that when I started playing 1E, it was under the expanded options of the original UA book).  There wasn't enough meat on dem bones, to suit my tastes.  

Still, I do understand the joy of sitting down for a spur-of-the-moment session and taking advantage of simpler rules in the name of fun.   We did that very occasionally with the OD&D books as well as Tunnels & Trolls (and the latter in particular is really a lot of fun if you suddenly get the urge for a simple, old fashioned dungeon crawl and all you've got in the house are six sided dice.  Take that, you fiend!).   

I would not argue, though, that BD&D may well be a more streamlined and cohesive system.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 8, 2009)

AD&D had a lot of great material,and adventures. Basic D&D had the better and more elegant rules system. The time when the two systems were both supported was truly awesome. Everything was so compatible that you could easily use stuff published for one system in the other. The early to mid 80's was certainly my favorite time for buying D&D product because of this.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 8, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> What makes you think this?




Because it's what Basic means to me.  I was incorrect, my point is valid, a lot of people get the early versions confused.

I was incorrect so I again concur with the focus of thedungeondelver's point, minus my caveat.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 8, 2009)

diaglo said:


> 1edADnD was too much. although it was the natural progression of what Supplement I Greyhawk (1975) had started. the switch in focus to building up your ability scores so you go more of a bonus. and the arms race it lead too. the powergamers wet dream that is D&D now.



Believe it or not, I actually agree with diaglo.  I cut my teeth on the B/X sets, and had a fair amount of fun.  

I didn't have any fun with AD&D.  In fact, when AD&D was the option presented to me, I quickly burned out and left D&D for the better part of 15 years... until 3e came out, anyway.  B/X felt loose and free, and gave me what I wanted from D&D; at least better than AD&D did; that is a way to recreate stuff like I read in fantasy novels at the time.  AD&D felt much more like a _game_ when at heart I wanted the roleplaying, I guess.  AD&D was pointlessly cryptic, arcane, poorly organized and arbitrary.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 8, 2009)

I pretty much agree with Diaglo’s assessment.

The truth is—as I now can see—that back-in-the-day everyone I knew was playing D&D with the AD&D books. When we did use modules, we ignored whether modules were marked as D&D or AD&D and just played them with our standard D&D-in-AD&D-clothes way.

These days, though, even the few complications that we did use from AD&D just don’t feel like they deliver enough return. For D&D, I don’t really need anymore than B/X.

But, I do find everything else to be handy for inspiration or the occasionally steal. e.g. Some of the stuff in the RC I find handy for fleshing out the descriptions of treasure hordes. e.g. The potion miscibility table from the 1e DMG is nice to have if the subject comes up.



Spoiler



I have even been known to borrow a thing or two from 3e. Don’t tell anyone, though, or they’ll revoke my grognard-card.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 8, 2009)

When I started playing, I ran this cobbled together Frankenstein game that included elements of AD&D, BD&D, and various other things that were just thrown in. If one version of the game had something I liked, I'd yoink it. The final campaign I ran under this system was a conquer the world game, using the map that came from the black box master's set. Shortly thereafter FR came out, and then 2nd edition, and I pretty much stuck with 2E until 3E.

Which system is actually better? I gravitate to my 1E AD&D books over my basic books when I'm feeling nolstalgic.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 8, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Which do you think was the better D&D game system: Basic D&D or Advanced D&D? Why?Total Bullgrit




I was introduced to D&D by just looking over the AD&D monster manuals at a friend's house, who told me that the game itself was too complex, so he and a buddy just told stories together using the MM as inspiration.

So, when I convinced my mom to get me my first D&D set, I naturally went for the "not-advanced" version because I naturally assumed they were the same game and you had to start with the Basic Set and then move up to AD&D when you were ready.

When I found out that they were essentially two very similar but different games, that basically had two close-but-different rulesets to do essentially the same thing . . . I got pissed off!!!  I thought, "I'm not falling for this stupid crap!"  And from that point on until college I would only purchase and collect BECMI D&D, nothing with an "A" in front of that D&D.  I felt so smart and superior to all those fools who got suckered into "advanced" D&D!

Then Dragonlance happened, and the wave after wave of awesome AD&D campaign settings that started to make my poor Mystara look tawdry in comparison . . . then Mystara was "graduated" to AD&D 2e right around the time Planescape was going strong . . . and I finally became an AD&D 2e addict!

Then 3rd Edition brought everything together for me, and all was good.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 8, 2009)

Oh, I forgot . . . which is better?  "Basic" D&D or "Advanced" D&D.  Even when I was in my elitist collect-only-BD&D-products phase, I never thought one system was superior to another system.  Both systems did the same thing, in almost-the-same-way-but-different manners.  Each system had rules subsets that I liked and subsets that I didn't like.

Despite my love for BD&D, I always thought the race-as-a-class idea was lame, and created demihuman class equivalents to the human options of fighter, cleric, thief, and wizard.  I had an elf warrior class, and elf thief class, etc, etc.

I also hated level-limits.  Not the general idea of them, as both games had them, but the BD&D implementation of them.  Your human character could advance to 36th level, but your demihuman character could only get to somewhere in the mid-teens and take those silly "letter" levels which still felt limited and underpowered.  But my campaigns as a DM never really got that high enough to matter anyway, and all my friends would run AD&D games.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jan 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> BECMI is pretty much B/X, but with a level cap of 36 rather than 14. It also adds some optional sub-systems, dominion rules, immortality for super-high PCs, and a lot more monsters.
> 
> IMHO, its BD&D 2nd edition, as it is as close to B/X as 1e is to 2e.




The B/X edition had a few differences including a "companion" section that gave a few abilities for characters higher than 14th level that never made it into the BECMI set.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 8, 2009)

Let me start off first by saying that BECMI and the RC are still definitely Basic D&D, but calling it "BD&D" is such a misnomer in the first place.  It's just D&D.  Basic is the name of the low-level rulebook, but it's not part of that particular game's moniker.  "Classic D&D" is the more widely accepted term.  The Companion and Masters Sets and the Rules Cylopedia might make the game a little more complicated at high levels, but let's face it, when is high level play not complicated?

So, between Classic D&D and Advanced D&D?  I personally much prefer Classic, although, when I do play AD&D, it's 2nd edition without any kits or Player's Option books, which is about as rules-lite as AD&D can possibly get.  But even then, AD&D has complexities that just turn me off, from the ability score charts to the massive and pointlessly unwieldy spell lists.  

Frankly, when I first gave up playing 3rd edition, and the choice before me was to go back to either the Classic game or the Advanced game, my gut instinct said "Advanced" because I thought that I'd miss multiclassing, race-class combinations, and the moral-ethical alignment axis.  Then I tried both games out, and I found that when I was playing Classic I didn't miss any of those things at all.  Single-classed characters, demihumans pegged in their racial classes, and an ethics-only alignment system actually made character creation so much easier to deal with that the whole game followed suit and ran like a well-oiled machine.  

Add on top of that the succinct spell, magic item, and monster lists and the real strong point of Classic D&D shines forth: it is complete and self-contained.  You can play it right out of the box, and you don’t have to add or subtract anything.  You can count on the game to be balanced all the way up to level 36, because it doesn’t get wonky until Immortals-level gameplay.  And there are actual, _playable_ rules for running dominions, conducting wars, and ascending to godhood!  In short, Classic wins, because it's the most playable edition.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jan 8, 2009)

For me at one point I thought the best D&D would have been to use the "Classic" D&D rules without racial classes.  Just use race/class combinations like AD&D.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 8, 2009)

I've seen a couple of mentions of how the AD&D modules were so much better.  Really?  While Keep on the Borderlands has its plusses and minuses, B4 The Lost City is one of the best modules ever, IMO.

I always thought that many of the B series modules got shorter shrift than maybe they deserved.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 8, 2009)

Achan hiArusa said:


> For me at one point I thought the best D&D would have been to use the "Classic" D&D rules without racial classes.  Just use race/class combinations like AD&D.




you need to play OD&D(1974)


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Jan 8, 2009)

Some of us swear by the RC, while others have issues with the way they twisted Mentzer's Mystara.  Others can't stand the RC because of the lack of immortals.  Some love the RC, but can't stand the Hoyle rules.  Others prefer the oldest rule sets and believes all future iterations were pale images.  The fans of Hoyle's rules dislike Mentzers.

These unfortunate schisms prevent OD&D fans from forming a strong secret society and taking over the world.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I've seen a couple of mentions of how the AD&D modules were so much better. Really? While Keep on the Borderlands has its plusses and minuses, B4 The Lost City is one of the best modules ever, IMO.
> 
> I always thought that many of the B series modules got shorter shrift than maybe they deserved.




NVM. Need coffee


----------



## Obryn (Jan 8, 2009)

I gravitate towards AD&D.  If I had a hardcopy of the RC, I might give that a spin someday, too - it's a slick, elegant system, overall with a very rules-light flavor.

AD&D just flips more of my switches.  I'm running it again, once a month, and I'm impressed at how well it runs if you tone down the crazy just a tad.

If I had a hardbound RC, I might choose to run it sometimes, too.  I've glanced through the PDF and have found it really well-done, but it doesn't kick me in quite the same spots.

-O


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 8, 2009)

Well, I started playing AD&D and liked it a lot. Shortly after I also joined a group playing D&D (BECMI) and didn't like it as much. While we had fun playing it I always felt it wasn't as satisfying as AD&D. One of my main gripes was that it didn't separate races and classes. I liked the additional complexity that AD&D offered.

Since I never got beyond level 6 or so in D&D I cannot say much about the higher level boxes.

I also cannot say much about the modules since I've played exclusively homebrew games with adventures designed by the DMs.

The D&D adventures I've seen, looked pretty bad to me (I vaguely remember Isle of Dread and Palace or Princess of something or other?!).

I've run some of the classic AD&D adventures (Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors) in 2E and wasn't much impressed by them either. In fact I had more fun using modules written for other game systems and translating them into AD&D. Most of the adventures I DMed were written by myself and used a homebrew setting.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 8, 2009)

As someone who started with the RC, I have a soft-spot for it. I'm not sure I could ever keep a long-term game going with it (its still a bit limited in options, a blessing and a curse) but I would love to find some people to run an infrequent game with.

I view it very differently from AD&D and 3e/4e. Those editions focus on a darker worldview, where demons and cults and mad gods live. RC D&D focuses on a much more "classical" world of knights and knaves, wise old wizards and hard-drinking dwarves and mysterious elves. Its much more "The Hobbit" and less "Lord of the Rings." Its archetypes are very strong (and straight-jacketing at the same time) and the three-alignment system feels more natural than the nine alignment definitions. They might share clerics and beholders, but they feel like different games.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jan 8, 2009)

diaglo said:


> you need to play OD&D(1974)





Wow!  I feel honored.  I have been Diagloed. 

I have a copy and the level limits for demihumans make more sense since nonwizards only go to 10th level and Wizards go to 16th (I don't understand why, better villans?) so an elf going to Fighter 3/Wizard 4 is not so bad.  But I don't think I can go that minimalistic.  Once I thought about it, I wanted 2e thief skills, but not just for thieves.  I would like to use the Buck Rogers XXVc skill system where everyone got percentile skills (I think the system is a bit hardier than the d20 system) with the skill list for 4e/SWsaga.  I like BAB and the more logical saving throws (but I think I perfer the way Star Wars Saga does things) from d20.  And a modified version of d20 multiclassing and the ability to bump ability scores might be good.

Maybe, I just need to design a new game.


----------



## Wombat (Jan 8, 2009)

I played the original D&D (three little books) ... but didn't play any of the Basic Sets.

I played Advanced D&D a few times, but it was not to my taste.

Essentially, I moved from OD&D to other games ... and only came back to D&D with 3e (barring individual sessions).


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I view it very differently from AD&D and 3e/4e. Those editions focus on a darker worldview, where demons and cults and mad gods live. RC D&D focuses on a much more "classical" world of knights and knaves, wise old wizards and hard-drinking dwarves and mysterious elves. Its much more "The Hobbit" and less "Lord of the Rings."




  I'd submit that RC D&D (and 2E AD&D) are more Tolkien/Malory/possibly Ariosto (who I only know through reputation at the moment) and 1E/3E/4E are more Howard/Moorcock/Leiber (though I also know Howard only through Solomon Kane, I've heard enough to make me confident in that judgment). If that's true, then it's no wonder I gravitate to the feel of the former.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 8, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> I'd submit that RC D&D (and 2E AD&D) are more Tolkien/Malory/possibly Aristo (who I only know through reputation at the moment) and 1E/3E/4E are more Howard/Moorcock/Leiber (though I also know Howard only through Solomon Kane, I've heard enough to make me confident in that judgment). If that's true, then it's no wonder I gravitate to the feel of the former.




Agreed, though I found you could keep the RC/2e feel in 3e if you tried hard enough.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jan 8, 2009)

Taureth said:


> AD&D.
> 
> I found BD&D fun to browse through, but never had any desire to play it, particularly.
> 
> ...




Racial Templates:  Demihuman races in basic D&D

New Spells:  New Spells and Dweomers


----------



## diaglo (Jan 8, 2009)

i think you might also want to find the stuff put together by Scott Ludwig


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jan 9, 2009)

diaglo said:


> i think you might also want to find the stuff put together by Scott Ludwig




Linky please.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 9, 2009)

Personally, I never knew of anyone to play Basic D&D after AD&D was released.

AD&D was better, but I guess it depends on your idea of what 'better' is. To me, options are 'better' and AD&D has more options than Basic. In basic I can be an Elf. All elf PCs are going to be almost exactly the same. In AD&D I can be an elf thief, and elf fighter/MU, whatever. There is more variation and within the structure of the rules set I can find a combination more suited to what I want to play.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 9, 2009)

Taureth said:


> As some one who prefers playing demi & semi human characters, and spell casters, I just found the classes, races and spell lists of Basic too limiting (particularly if you consider that when I started playing 1E, it was under the expanded options of the original UA book).  There wasn't enough meat on dem bones, to suit my tastes.




I understand that.

On the other hand, though, it can be a lot of fun to take the D&D base and build your own AD&D on it instead of just taking what TSR gave you.



Achan hiArusa said:


> I have a copy and the level limits for demihumans make more sense since nonwizards only go to 10th level and Wizards go to 16th (I don't understand why, better villans?) so an elf going to Fighter 3/Wizard 4 is not so bad.




FWIW, humans aren’t limited in level at all.



			
				Men & Magic said:
			
		

> *Levels:* There is no theoretical limit to how high a character may progress, i.e. 20th level Lord, 20th level Wizard, etc. Distinct names have only been included for the base levels, but this does not influence progression.






WayneLigon said:


> There is more variation and within the structure of the rules set I can find a combination more suited to what I want to play.




With any form of D&D prior to—what? late 2e?—it’s more about finding a character within the structure presented that you want to play rather than trying to fit the character you want to play into the structure.

Which is not to disagree with your point. AD&D had options in its structure than D&D didn’t. Just making a general observation.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 9, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> In basic I can be an Elf. All elf PCs are going to be almost exactly the same.




This is a _good_ thing if you're shooting for that Tolkien/Fiest/McKiernan high fantasy mystique in your games.  Not so much if you prefer your swords & sorcery to be a little pulpier.  Really, another poster already said it at the top of this page: AD&D for hardcore low fantasy, D&D for through-the-roof high fantasy.  This is because, in very broad terms, D&D characters get vertically *more powerful* as they gain levels, while AD&D characters gain horizontal access to *more options*. 

In AD&D, high level play is definitely much easier to keep "in the dungeon," because high-level AD&D PCs aren't quite so uber.  But then again, I just finished (not less than two hours ago) DMing a session of D&D, in which the PCs just crossed the threshold of 35th level.  (It's been going on for a *long* time).  For those of you not familiar with the scale of the game, characters typically become rulers between 9th and 15th level, and they quest for immortality between 26th and 36th (the maximum possible level).  These characters are all monarchs and half an adventure away from destroying an evil artifact that's plagued them since they were Expert-level characters, and transitioning to the Immortals game.  And it's STILL FUN TO DM.  I've never had an AD&D or d20 game stay fun past 15th level, but Classic D&D campaigns just don't seem to want to run out of steam.  That's some really impressive staying power!


----------



## diaglo (Jan 9, 2009)

Achan hiArusa said:


> Linky please.




it is probably on pandius somewhere.

but it was iirc originally on dragonsfoot and then added to Richard Tongue's ODDities webzine. do a google search. somewhere around 2002 or so.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 9, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> I'd submit that RC D&D (and 2E AD&D) are more Tolkien/Malory/possibly Ariosto...




I like the high fantasy feel of Mentzer/Elmore era D&D a lot, and I've tried to capture it in my current 3e campaign.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jan 9, 2009)

RFisher said:


> FWIW, humans aren’t limited in level at all.




There were no rules for going past 10th level in Fighting Man or Cleric and for going past 16th level for Wizard in the White Box, ergo those were hard level limits.

As for BECMID&D there is a limit of 36 for humans, unless you are a Mystic.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jan 9, 2009)

Achan hiArusa said:


> There were no rules for going past 10th level in Fighting Man or Cleric and for going past 16th level for Wizard in the White Box, ergo those were hard level limits.



nope. no limits for levels for humans.

look again at your men & magic booklet

edit: page 18 and 19 if you want to look for yourself.
Davey "I've got them pretty much memorized" Jones


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jan 10, 2009)

DaveyJones said:


> nope. no limits for levels for humans.
> 
> look again at your men & magic booklet
> 
> ...




Okay, you're right.  Now the question comes, how?  The experience table stops and I didn't see anything on how much levels cost after the one on the table.  The fighting man and cleric seem to indicate you double with each level whereas the wizard is +100,000 per level.  Weird.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 10, 2009)

Achan hiArusa said:


> Okay, you're right.  Now the question comes, how?  The experience table stops and I didn't see anything on how much levels cost after the one on the table.  The fighting man and cleric seem to indicate you double with each level whereas the wizard is +100,000 per level.  Weird.




That is a very reasonable interpretation of the tables. Does seem a bit weird for only MUs to be linear.

In any case, read the Afterword from _The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures_ again. It says—explicitly, “Here’s a start; make up the rest yourselves.” So the progression beyond what’s given in M&M is whatever the group/referee chooses.

Personally, I like continuing the doubling rather than levelling off to linear like later editions did. I’d be tempted to make off-the-chart levels MU levels double as well.


(Even without the text on M&M pp. 18–19, I couldn’t call it a “hard limit” in light of the Afterword. For me to even consider calling a limit hard in oD&D, the text would have to be _explicit_ about the limit. ^_^)


----------

