#burn
but now I'm confused as to how many versions of 1e there actually are and whether it truly matters to anybody...
People liked my explanation from.
How many editions of Dungeons & Dragons are there?
rpg.stackexchange.com
- Original Dungeons & Dragons published in 1974
Note that the basic game uses d6's for almost everything, and is written to use Chainmail as the combat system, rather than the "alternate combat system," which would later become the standard D&D combat mechanic. Further, only three classes exist - Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-User — and neither multi-classing nor demihumans work the same as later.
- Supplement I: Greyhawk published in 1975
The added rules made Dungeons & Dragon into a form we recognize today. It changes to the HD mechanic that is used in every later edition, added thieves and the thief skills, changed multiclassing towards what would be used in AD&D
- Basic Dungeons & Dragons by Holmes in 1977
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in 1977-1979
- Basic/Expert Dungeons & Dragons by Moldvay/Cook in 1981
- Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal Dungeons & Dragons by Mentzer in 1983
- Unearthed Arcana for AD&D (Some say that this made AD&D 1.5.)
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition in 1989
As it mattering in practice I found most classic edition fans today and back in the day to run their campaign with AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, spells) with B/X style rules. The first major division being whether you used Unearthed Arcana or not.
The historical break points I found are
Do you play with 3 LBB of OD&D only or not?
Do you play OD&D with supplements or not?
Do you play BECMI culminated in the RC or not?
Do you play AD&D with the 3 core books or not?
Do you play AD&D with UA or not?
Do you play AD&D with UA with the Survival Guide proficiency rules or not?
The debut of the OSR added the following
Do you play B/X or not?
Do yo uplay B/X with some of AD&D's stuff or not?
The main reason the above isn't historical because BECMI was in print in the 80s and B/X was not. And BECMI so close to be B/X that they were interchangeable to most. Plus the Rules Cyclopedia was a well done compilation of the BECMI line. Of which meant in the 80s or 90s if a referee was not a fan of AD&D but liked D&D likely they were using BECMI or the RC.
As for the significance of it all, my experience is that both then and now hobbyists respond negatively to suggestions about what rules they ought to be using. For example, a AD&D referee uses the equivalent of B/x combat sequence to resolve melee and ignores those sections in the DMG. Then a player pipes up and tries to cite a rule from those sections.
Or suggesting to a OD&D group using the supplements that they ought to be playing AD&D Instead