Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Request for Basic D&D forum tag (Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dungeonosophy" data-source="post: 8719967" data-attributes="member: 6688049"><p>I was around on message boards at the turn of the millennium too, on the Mystara Message Board (at WotC) and the Mystara Mailing List. And you're right that we (in the BECMI/Mystara community) referred to BECMI as "OD&D". That usually stood for "Old D&D" rather than "Original D&D." There was also Richard Tongue's ODDities magazine, which was BECMI oriented. So I understand what you're saying.</p><p></p><p>At time (1998-1999), 3e hadn't come out, and my generation (who grew up 1980s) in the Mystara/BECMI community context, was not very aware of the 1970s Original D&D, and so we just used "OD&D" in contrast to AD&D (2e).</p><p></p><p>But with the advent of D&D history sites, we've all become aware of the difference between the manila OD&D booklets and the various iterations of Basic D&D, beginning with Holmes.</p><p></p><p>The naming convention has changed. We are no longer in the year 1999 on Dragonsfoot. And it is clearer to distinguish OD&D (Original) vs. BD&D. Even the editors of that time (e.g. Moldvay, see below) used this terminology, contrasting "Original" vs. "Basic."</p><p></p><p>Yes, ruleswise, the various editions of BD&D gradually blended from OD&D to RC D&D, but even Holmes BD&D was a clear shift, with a new moniker "Basic." The manila pamphlets were really from another era.</p><p></p><p>Huh? It makes total sense. The image you shared affirms what I'm saying. The editor there distinguishes the "Original Set" from the "Basic Set" as two different editions. In other words, Original D&D vs. Basic D&D.</p><p></p><p>Yes, they were both branded "D&D". Yes, BD&D is a later edition of OD&D, both branded "D&D."</p><p></p><p>In contrast to "AD&D." Because "D&D" and "AD&D" were legally kept distinct due to Arneson royalty calculations.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, AD&D1e and AD&D2e were both branded "AD&D". They were both "internally treated as one single game line." But 1e and 2e have their own tags on ENWorld.</p><p></p><p>By your logic, D&D 3e, 4e, and 5e should be subsumed in "OD&D" since they're just branded "D&D" as well. Even from a legal perspective, 3e was only allowed to be branded as "D&D" (instead of "AD&D") because WotC successfully offered to buy out Arneson's stake in the "D&D" brand when WotC purchased TSR. Are they are all the same edition since they're all legally the same "D&D" brand / game / lineage?</p><p></p><p></p><p>What general attitude? That Original D&D and Basic D&D were both editions of the D&D brand? In contrast to the AD&D brand? True.</p><p></p><p>Yet Moldvay distinguishes "original" D&D from "Basic" D&D in the Foreword to Moldvay Basic: (boldface added)</p><p></p><p><em>"The <strong>original </strong>D&D rules are a classic. [...] When I revised the rules I tried to maintain the spirit of the earlier rules. [...] In the half-dozen years since the <strong>original</strong> rules were published, TSR staff has answered thousands of rules questions. [etc.]" --p.B2</em></p><p></p><p>Um yeah, that may've been the convention in the late 1970s / early 1980s, in that place. (Once you reach the mid-1980s, hardly anyone had heard of the manila booklets.)</p><p></p><p>Like I said above, I agree that prior to the release of 3e in the year 2000, the main contrast was "Old D&D" vs. "AD&D." Conventions change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dungeonosophy, post: 8719967, member: 6688049"] I was around on message boards at the turn of the millennium too, on the Mystara Message Board (at WotC) and the Mystara Mailing List. And you're right that we (in the BECMI/Mystara community) referred to BECMI as "OD&D". That usually stood for "Old D&D" rather than "Original D&D." There was also Richard Tongue's ODDities magazine, which was BECMI oriented. So I understand what you're saying. At time (1998-1999), 3e hadn't come out, and my generation (who grew up 1980s) in the Mystara/BECMI community context, was not very aware of the 1970s Original D&D, and so we just used "OD&D" in contrast to AD&D (2e). But with the advent of D&D history sites, we've all become aware of the difference between the manila OD&D booklets and the various iterations of Basic D&D, beginning with Holmes. The naming convention has changed. We are no longer in the year 1999 on Dragonsfoot. And it is clearer to distinguish OD&D (Original) vs. BD&D. Even the editors of that time (e.g. Moldvay, see below) used this terminology, contrasting "Original" vs. "Basic." Yes, ruleswise, the various editions of BD&D gradually blended from OD&D to RC D&D, but even Holmes BD&D was a clear shift, with a new moniker "Basic." The manila pamphlets were really from another era. Huh? It makes total sense. The image you shared affirms what I'm saying. The editor there distinguishes the "Original Set" from the "Basic Set" as two different editions. In other words, Original D&D vs. Basic D&D. Yes, they were both branded "D&D". Yes, BD&D is a later edition of OD&D, both branded "D&D." In contrast to "AD&D." Because "D&D" and "AD&D" were legally kept distinct due to Arneson royalty calculations. Similarly, AD&D1e and AD&D2e were both branded "AD&D". They were both "internally treated as one single game line." But 1e and 2e have their own tags on ENWorld. By your logic, D&D 3e, 4e, and 5e should be subsumed in "OD&D" since they're just branded "D&D" as well. Even from a legal perspective, 3e was only allowed to be branded as "D&D" (instead of "AD&D") because WotC successfully offered to buy out Arneson's stake in the "D&D" brand when WotC purchased TSR. Are they are all the same edition since they're all legally the same "D&D" brand / game / lineage? What general attitude? That Original D&D and Basic D&D were both editions of the D&D brand? In contrast to the AD&D brand? True. Yet Moldvay distinguishes "original" D&D from "Basic" D&D in the Foreword to Moldvay Basic: (boldface added) [I]"The [B]original [/B]D&D rules are a classic. [...] When I revised the rules I tried to maintain the spirit of the earlier rules. [...] In the half-dozen years since the [B]original[/B] rules were published, TSR staff has answered thousands of rules questions. [etc.]" --p.B2[/I] Um yeah, that may've been the convention in the late 1970s / early 1980s, in that place. (Once you reach the mid-1980s, hardly anyone had heard of the manila booklets.) Like I said above, I agree that prior to the release of 3e in the year 2000, the main contrast was "Old D&D" vs. "AD&D." Conventions change. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Request for Basic D&D forum tag (Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia)
Top