Talk:Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules (Original D&D)

Clarification

IME, OD&D refers to the original Gygax/Arneson material that Holmes (later Moldvay, Mentzer) revised, not to the revised (Basic) rules. As well, there are 3 versions of this, the latter two by Tom Moldvay and Frank Mentzer. Will you be adding pages for the other author versions?--GamerAim (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2016 (MDT)

OD&D also includes the rules of the Chainmail miniature warfare game and the rules of the Wilderness Survival game by Avalon Hill, which the original publications relied upon. This is only the basic rules composed by Holmes. Because it is merely a recomposition of existing material, designed to make D&D independent of other games, it should be treated as OD&D. The original game evolved into the basic series very fluidly, and this was the publication which began that process. This publication was never even titled "basic", though it described itself as containing the "basic rules" in its page content. We already have entries for the basic set by Moldvay, the basic set by Mentzer, and the Rules Cyclopedia by Aaron Allston. I have also recently made an entry for the expert set expansion to the Moldvay revision by David "Zeb" Cook. --Kydo (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

See Tactical Studies Rules/TSR Inc.#Original D&D for more details. --Kydo (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

Well alright, but for most everyone else, they consider this and OD&D two different things specifically because OD&D involved the use of Chainmail (and arguably Wilderness Survival) and the expansion supplements. I do understand your point and the distinction between Basic, BX and BECMI, but I agree with everyone else in that a revision, compilation and clarification of the rules makes this basic set no more OD&D than AD&D was. That said, I'm just providing my thoughts on this, but now that's done, I don't intend to engage in an edit war over something as trivial as if Holmes is or isn't OD&D :P --GamerAim (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

I don't plan to get into an edit war either. I recognize that most people don't see this as OD&D- but by the same token, most people don't even know this set exists, and can't tell the difference between Moldvay and Mentzer's books. (Which aren't even fully compatible with each other) I make the distinction based on the terminology used in the books themselves, rather than the fairly limited/flawed public impression of the publications. I'm happy to discuss the distinction though. If it turns out that I am wrong, and the boys at TSR really had intended this to be a new version of the game, rather than an additional guidebook for the original game, then I will certainly return it to the Basic category and identifier. --Kydo (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

The thing is, you're not exactly wrong. TSR did intend for Holmes to just be a revised compilation of OD&D for new players and made it clear that AD&D was for moving onto after level 3. It was only after the success of the first two Basic sets that TSR split into two product lines instead of killing off OD&D and focusing only on AD&D. So yeah, I don't actually think that you're wrong at all, just that it's a small matter of perception. It's not how I'd label it, but I'd be labeling it with a different intent than you, because I see OD&D as the primitive Chainmail-based fantasy rules with the five supplements, but Basic as the more coherent system designed for those without wargaming experience.--GamerAim (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

I just realized weve been having a philosophical discussion using a word we haven't defined. Thanks for that. It seem clear to me now that, in order for ths publications project to continue, this community will need to define the word "Edition" for the purposes of organization. Are AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 2nd edition the same game? Two different games? What about the 2.5e revision? D&D products have a complex history behind them. If we want to clarify it to people, we need to understand ourselves and each other when we talk about editions first. --Kydo (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

If AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 2nd edition aren't the same game, I certainly missed the memo :P I admit, it is kinda confusing especially since 3e dropped the advanced title. Is it the third AD&D or is it coming after Basic (which came after OD&D)? Personally, considering TSR sorta soft-dropped Basic (IIRC), I think 3e is AD&D 3e. They just dropped the advanced part for reasons. Of course, it uses Basic-style ability score modifiers (albeit more codified), so IDK (although it's obviously 2e derived).

2.5e, if I'm not mistaken, has always referred to the Player's Option books, but I think some use it to refer to any 2e game using splatbooks (but I think it's uncommon to use it that way). That said, 2.5e is an unofficial term, unlike 3.5. I think some people even coined 1.5 as a 1e game that uses UA and other first-party sourcebooks. OD&D is also unofficial, but as I said, has universally been used to refer only to the original boxed set and five supplements. The multiple Basic (and Expert) rules kinda complicates things further!

Anyway, I've usually referred to OD&D the way I've described; Classic to mean Basic, BX, BECMI and the RC; 1e to mean pre-2e books; 2e to mean anything that was released for AD&D after 2e came out. I'd not actually use 1.5e or 2.5e to refer to anything, since those are unofficial terms. TSR used Classic to refer to the BECMI game at some point, but you could also distinguish between BECMI and BX if you'd like. I personally have no problem with Holmes being listed as OD&D, but I still think Holmes and OD&D are two different systems (or else 2e and 1e are the same system?). In fact, the biggest change between 1e and 2e wasn't all the larger rules changes themselves, but that it was turned into a usable game system with properly written books :P--GamerAim (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

That's interesting! I've never heard that definition for 2.5e! My friends use that designation for the revised 2nd edition publications! It also shows that an "edition" is clearly not something a developer creates- it's something which exists to the community of people who play the game. This may very well be good reason for me to switch it back to the basic designation. If developer intent doesn't make an edition, then my reasoning for including it as OD&D is incorrect. --Kydo (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

What if we treated OD&D as an umbrella term for the "original" product line, and then divy up all of the other versions with secondary identifiers. (So this one would become something like "Dungeons & Dragons (Basic) (OD&D)", the Mentzer one would be "Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (BECMI) (OD&D)", etc? --Kydo (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2016 (MDT)

People might include the larger 2e core rulebooks as 2.5e, but the books are ostensibly the same as the smaller ones (I think all the changes were rules clarifications/errata, layout and artwork). The Player's Option books introduced vast changes in the rules, particularly character creation and combat. While never called 2.5e, it was pretty much a new rules revision. The truth is, you could group all D&D as either Original or Advanced, but it wouldn't do anyone any good. OD&D is "original" because it's the raw, primitive form of the game that got codified with Holmes' book. So you could argue that it's part of OD&D, or you could say it's distinct. Maybe it's book, like how 1e and 2e are both Advanced by still distinct systems. Then Moldvay revised Holmes' work and that led to BX. Then Mentzer did it again and it led to BECMI, which was compiled into the RC. Meanwhile, AD&D was an attempt to create a hard-fast rule system for tournament play that led to overly complex rules that likely led to the unexpected success of Basic that made TSR split the product lines how they did. I'd only say Basic is distinct from OD&D because it's how I was raised and because we have the benefit of hindsight: we know that it led to a distinct product line.

In short: Do whatever you like, because I realize that how you label it is a matter of perspective. Technically, TSR/WotC only had two lines: Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I group them the way I do because I have to sort them by general system compatibility for my digital archive (Original, Classic, Advanced, 3e, 4e, 5e), but that's not what this is about, so do whatever makes you feel best.--GamerAim (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2016 (MDT)