B/X differences

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Reposting something Gene Weigel dug up about dragon breath weapons:

From POLYHEDRON #5 (APR 1982) DISPEL CONFUSION:

a: Does dragon breath do damage equal to the dragon's current hit points, or its original (undamaged) hit points?

A: In the AD&D system, dragon breath damage is always equal to the dragon's original hit points - even if it's currently down to 1 hp. In the D&D BASIC Set, it's the other way around; the current hit points determine the damage done.
*The "Basic Set" at this time is not the 1977 version edited by J. Eric Holmes, originally for his students, but rather the 1981 TSR staff rule pile up edited by Tom Moldvay for teenagers (Also repeated in the 1981 "Expert Set" rule pile up edited Zeb Cook and Steve Marsh under "dragon turtles".) the "damaged breath weapon" rule would carry over into the next Basic Set in 1983 that was another TSR staff pile up but this time edited by Frank Mentzer doing it as a series of boxed sets of Basic(1983)/ Expert(1983)/ Companion(1984)/ Master(1985)/ Immortals(1986) for the TOYS R US market. This "damageable breath weapon" continued into the 1990's when these young player D&D versions were compiled unwittingly, by a Lorraine Williams' hire named Aaron Allston, into the D&D CYCLOPEDIA (1991) who considered this a version of D&D that was "aimed for an experienced user" which is why there was (is?) such zeal around this version all the while unaware it was actually aimed for small children.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Which is why I'm looking forward to breaking out the old Red Box with my kids someday.

I'm going to anger someone I assume, but I think the Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer fight is pointless. If you're not a crackhead, grog purist playing some Whitebox clone (and making up an absolute shit-ton of house rules as a result), you should be playing AD&D or one of it's later iterations. Basic is helpful for introducing people to the hobby but breaks down under extended use.
 

robertsconley

*eyeroll*
You do realize that this thesis is totally unsupported by the facts. Since the start of the OSR in the mid 2000’s it been well documented through actual play accounts that thousands have make B/X work for their campaigns and work well with rules as written.
 
Last edited:

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
From the get-go the tone of the Moldvay Basic felt like an insult to my intelligence, coming after the AD&D books like it did with little or no explanation of where it fit in the equation (e.g. intended age-range). Always bugged me.

Regardless of my intentionally fanning the flames of edition wars :devilish:, the dragon breath weapon change is an interesting departure.

@robertsconley : I don't doubt that if you were on a deserted island---with no dice and only half of a water-logged Basic book---you'd find a way to play D&D every evening with only coconuts and shear gumption.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
The subtle differences introduced for B/X versus earlier/other additions. I think there is a notion that most of the game didn't change and that OD&D, Holmes Basic, AD&D 1e/2e and B/X are extremely similar.

In particular, B/X is often described these days as being OD&D.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I should note I looked for a B/X thread analogous to the "Why you think 5e/2e/etc sucks, and your wrong" threads but made this one instead.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Translation: Nobody had posted anything in a while that gave @squeen an opportunity to tell us why 1e is better than everything else, so he made something up.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
#burn

but now I'm confused as to how many versions of 1e there actually are and whether it truly matters to anybody...
 
The subtle differences introduced for B/X versus earlier/other additions. I think there is a notion that most of the game didn't change and that OD&D, Holmes Basic, AD&D 1e/2e and B/X are extremely similar.

In particular, B/X is often described these days as being OD&D.
They are certainly more similar to each other than any of them are to 5e. They are also more similar to each other than 5e is to 4e or 3e. You can't just run a 4e module in the 5e ruleset and have it work without major changes. You can absolutely run a Basic module in 1e without much of a hassle.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Yeah, we used the B-series modules in our AD&D games without any nod to a difference in system. And we took what we wanted from 2e and incorporated it into our AD&D game freely. And I'm pretty sure we always used Basic initiative, except for those games where we used 2e initiative. Most of the differences were either aesthetic or related to rules we were already ignoring. I generally view arguments about which was the best system pre-3e as pretty pointless.

EDIT: For that matter, I think most of the arguments about mid-edition changes are pretty pointless. Certainly the 4e "original" vs "essentials" argument is stupid, and my impression is that you can pretty much use a 3.0 module in 3.5 without revision (Forge of Fury and Sunless Citadel still seem pretty popular). This upcoming edition seems like it is going to be more or less 5.5e, or at most like the transition from 1e to 2e.

but now I'm confused as to how many versions of 1e there actually are and whether it truly matters to anybody...
I think the common divisions are: Little Brown Books, Little Brown Books + Supplements (collectively OD&D or 0e); Holmes Basic, B/X and BECMI (Collectively "Basic"); and AD&D, or AD&D + Unearthed Arcana (which may or may not include supplements with non-weapon proficiencies) (technically all first edition AD&D or 1e, but frequently differentiated by people who don't like UA and/or skill systems).

So that is 5-8 editions up to the end of 1e, depending on your level of pedantic snobbery.
 
Last edited:

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Anytime the math curve materially changes for likely actions/choices it is appropriate to draw a line between one era and the next. Whether an adventure is compatible with multiple math curves expressed as rules is irrelevant, as is whether or not it seems to read very similarly as text.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Anytime the math curve materially changes for likely actions/choices it is appropriate to draw a line between one era and the next. Whether an adventure is compatible with multiple math curves expressed as rules is irrelevant, as is whether or not it seems to read very similarly as text.
That is probably a fair comment on the changes made by UA; weapon specialization, particularly double specialization, and the changes to chargen were both pretty significant. I'm not sure where else it would apply before 3e.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Here's an edition-based question. Is AD&D 1e the only edition with training rules that require the character to spend both time and money to go up a level?
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I love the idea of gp=downtime/training=xp but in actual practice, a lot of the time it's expedient to level characters up in the dungeon. Sure, a lot of medium-large dungeons are designed to be approached in multiple delves reinforced by that neat old-school restock mechanic, but sometimes they're down too deep, they've murdered half the dungeon and looted thoroughly, but they're about to hit a mini-boss or boss fight designed for the 5 or 6 part of "A Dungeon Adventure designed for 4-8 characters levels 4-6". Or stuff like B5 'Horror on the Hill' designed for characters levels 1-3 but you're likely to get dumped down the trapdoor and trapped in the three level dungeon at 1st level. There's a frickin DRAGON blocking the exit! If the PC's have the XP to level up in that dungeon, you're going to do it.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I love the idea of gp=downtime/training=xp but in actual practice, a lot of the time it's expedient to level characters up in the dungeon. Sure, a lot of medium-large dungeons are designed to be approached in multiple delves reinforced by that neat old-school restock mechanic, but sometimes they're down too deep, they've murdered half the dungeon and looted thoroughly, but they're about to hit a mini-boss or boss fight designed for the 5 or 6 part of "A Dungeon Adventure designed for 4-8 characters levels 4-6". Or stuff like B5 'Horror on the Hill' designed for characters levels 1-3 but you're likely to get dumped down the trapdoor and trapped in the three level dungeon at 1st level. There's a frickin DRAGON blocking the exit! If the PC's have the XP to level up in that dungeon, you're going to do it.
I think in 1e that was part of the point, to keep the party from leveling out of the intended range for the module and/or to slow down progression in general. Remember there was also a rule that, not only couldn't you gain a level until you trained, but you stopped receiving experience.

You also end up with this tension between wanting to clear a dungeon to prevent restocking between sessions, and wanting to level. And then, because of the nature of training rules, the amount of time (and cash) you spent training increased based on the DMs (arbitrary) assessment of how well you roleplayed your character. So roleplaying well (by the DM's definition) is incentivized to save money and limit the amount of time for the dungeon to restock.

I practice I think this is part of the reason you see, in discussions of early Gygax games, a tendency to only partially complete a dungeon, then go do something else, then come back to the dungeon later. (The other factor being that it was easy to miss things, and sometimes you wanted to go back to find what you had missed.)

Re: B5, and getting stuck in dungeons in general, them's the risks you take and why you need to husband your resources. Also, patience helps; dragons sleep a lot, and aren't there the whole time. At least that was 1e dragons, I don't remember with B+.

Truthfully, I think modern games level too quickly. People want the fun of levelling and are poor at delayed gratification, but then I notice players and DMs getting bummed that they level out of certain areas/experiences, and there is a pretty short time limit on the whole campaign. When we played monster XP only (no GP=XP), we could keep those campaigns going for years, even though we were probably playing 12 hours per week.
 
Top