|
Post by jeffb on Jun 23, 2020 18:52:03 GMT -6
I largely agree. What I miss most in B/X is Gary's voice. I can see that, but, "Gary's voice" was part of the hurdle of understanding the LBB's and 1e AD&D. Editing was not his strong suit. As big as a Gary fanboy that I am, and that's HUGE- I agree 100%. Neither BX or BECMI would have been nearly as successful at accomplishing what they set out to if Gary had done them.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 23, 2020 19:32:59 GMT -6
I can see that, but, "Gary's voice" was part of the hurdle of understanding the LBB's and 1e AD&D. Editing was not his strong suit. As big as a Gary fanboy that I am, and that's HUGE- I agree 100%. Neither BX or BECMI would have been nearly as successful at accomplishing what they set out to if Gary had done them. While you both certainly have a good point, I think of Gary's excellent introductory module, B2: The Keep on the Borderlands.
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jun 25, 2020 10:58:27 GMT -6
I can see that, but, "Gary's voice" was part of the hurdle of understanding the LBB's and 1e AD&D. Editing was not his strong suit. You can have Gary's voice and good editing at the same time, you know
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 26, 2020 9:15:04 GMT -6
I think audience matters. Gary wrote the 1974 D&D rules (as well as the GREYHAWK and ELDRITCH WIZARDRY supplements) for experienced wargamers. He wrote AD&D for experienced D&Ders. In contrast, he wrote module B2 for novices. I suspect that if Gary had sat down to write a complete set of D&D rules for novices, he would have done a good job.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 26, 2020 11:02:40 GMT -6
He was brief and extremely effective when talking fiction/fluff/description- the opening bit of B2 "The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted...." And say the intro to Hommlett, are far better than reams of description in later products. That was his strong suit. Conveying imagery.
But otherwise I think I'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think Gary could be brief, matter of fact, and effective when it came to rules in print-unless he was shutting something (or someone) down for whatever reason. At least not without somebody putting the screws to him.
Even if we say OK- those were the first books of their kind and cutting him some slack.
Looking at his later gamebook works-
He didn't do a good job with Mythus. Great Gary prose, but a wreck of a rulebook. I'm guessing GDW went pretty easy on him for editing.
Mythus PRIME, for "beginners"- Nope, not well written for beginners, at all.
Lejendary Adventures- the original volumes from Hekaforge are wonderful and awful like Mythus and that's after some editing by Chris.
The Trolls' Lejendary Adventures Essentials line is slightly better, but still not heavy handed enough.
I'm guessing most folks didn't want to be heavy handed on him with editing for a variety of reasons- and certainly not during his time at TSR 1979-ish and beyond.
Which brings me back to -Tom and Zeb/Steve were the perfect folks for producing a set of clear and concise rules based on the OD&D books for a generation of new people.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 29, 2020 13:03:40 GMT -6
Those are good points about Mythus and Lejendary Adventures. I have a 1st printing of dungeon module B2. The credits on page 23 list the following editors: David CookHarold Johnson Jeff R. Leason Frank Mentzer Tom MoldvayLawrence Shick Jean Wells I wonder how much impact those editors (especially Cook and Moldvay!) had on Gary's B2 manuscript.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 1, 2020 22:48:46 GMT -6
“My Basic D&D” is
1. The 1978 Players Handbook — you know, the 8 pages at the end where he summarizes the rules which are gone into in greater depth in the DMG. It works for me just fine.
and
2. The 1980 Keep on the Borderlands - taught me so much, I know it inside and out, it gave me so many rules of thumb, to this day I have it handy no matter what I am running.
I occasionally use Holmes for monsters if I’m running B1 or B2, but, little else. For other B or X modules I do use the Rules Cyclopedia monsters section. My son finds the PHB equipment price list overwhelming, so, he has a copy of Holmes he refers to. I also really dig the Monster & Treasure Assortments, but the OD&D/Holmes/MM versions, not so much the Moldvay edits.
|
|
Narmer
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 21
|
Post by Narmer on Jul 23, 2020 15:55:26 GMT -6
I came to B/X really late. I started with Holmes in '79 and quickly transitioned to AD&D and stayed with that. When B/X came out I didn't understand what it was for. It was different, alignment was weird and I ignored it. Eventually I went to college and, for the most part, stopped playing RPGs other than dabbling a little here and there. There were a lot of Traveller characters created (and killed in creation) at various points during those years. However, I eventually started getting interested in roleplaying again, first other games and then D&D type games. (Most of my original RPG stuff had disappeared into the depth of time. Sad story there.) In my searches I ran across Labyrinth Lord. I really liked it and when I found out it was based on Moldvay Basic I snagged a copy of the rulebook. I really liked it! Better than I ever liked Holmes or AD&D! Straightforward, clean and compact! I particularly liked that because I didn't have time for rules complexity anymore. I really wish I had payed attention to it back in the early '80s. It's my go to D&D game now. Along with Whitebox. Which I tweak to make look a bit more like Basic.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 23, 2020 18:07:58 GMT -6
I came to B/X really late. I started with Holmes in '79 and quickly transitioned to AD&D and stayed with that. When B/X came out I didn't understand what it was for. It was different, alignment was weird and I ignored it. Eventually when I went to college and, for the most part, stopped playing RPGs other than dabbling a little here and there. There were a lot of Traveller characters created (and killed in creation) at various points during those years. However, I eventually started getting interested in roleplaying again, first other games and then D&D type games. (Most of my original RPG stuff had disappeared into the depth of time. Sad story there.) In my searches I ran across Labyrinth Lord. I really liked it and when I found out it was based on Moldvay Basic I snagged a copy of the rulebook. I really liked it! Better than I ever liked Holmes or AD&D! Straightforward, clean and compact! I particularly liked that because I didn't have time for rules complexity anymore. I really wish I had payed attention to it back in the early '80s. It's my go to D&D game now. Along with Whitebox. Which I tweak to make look a bit more like Basic. Welcome to the forums! Thanks for relating your tale
|
|
Narmer
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 21
|
Post by Narmer on Jul 23, 2020 18:10:33 GMT -6
I came to B/X really late. I started with Holmes in '79 and quickly transitioned to AD&D and stayed with that. When B/X came out I didn't understand what it was for. It was different, alignment was weird and I ignored it. Eventually when I went to college and, for the most part, stopped playing RPGs other than dabbling a little here and there. There were a lot of Traveller characters created (and killed in creation) at various points during those years. However, I eventually started getting interested in roleplaying again, first other games and then D&D type games. (Most of my original RPG stuff had disappeared into the depth of time. Sad story there.) In my searches I ran across Labyrinth Lord. I really liked it and when I found out it was based on Moldvay Basic I snagged a copy of the rulebook. I really liked it! Better than I ever liked Holmes or AD&D! Straightforward, clean and compact! I particularly liked that because I didn't have time for rules complexity anymore. I really wish I had payed attention to it back in the early '80s. It's my go to D&D game now. Along with Whitebox. Which I tweak to make look a bit more like Basic. Welcome to the forums! Thanks for relating your tale Thanks!
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 347
|
Post by Parzival on Aug 12, 2020 12:13:41 GMT -6
I started with Holmes back in 1980, and migrated almost immediately to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, because “Advanced.” Around the time 2e started to rear its head, I was getting tired of the complexity of AD&D. I noticed the Mentzer Basic sets at a bookstore where I worked, and started using my employee discount to buy them. I fell in love with the simplicity and flexibility of the system, which to me offered more versatility and a better base to flex my own imagination than AD&D did. I wound up getting BECM (but not I... had no interest in running gods or playing gods), the RC and the entire Gazetteer run, including the Emperors boxed set, Top Ballista 8O , and the various Creature Crucibles. I picked up one Hollow World product, but that setting didn’t appeal to me. These days, the RC is my go to reference work. I have a lot of house rules, but what I like about the B/X/ECMI approach is that it so readily allows for these. The system is flexible enough and simple enough to allow for easy tweaking, while robust enough to not come crashing down when you do. There’s clarity when I need it, and openness when I don’t. You can’t get that with the modern games— they’re too rigidly designed and narrowly defined. I happen to be among those who have also embraced Race-as-Class as a thematic and logical advantage in the system. Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings are NOT just short humans with more hair— they are distinct *species* with their own definitive cultures, mental processes, points of view, and even gods. They don’t *fit* within the classes defined for humans; they are each “their own thing.” A dwarf’s class isn’t “fighter,” though he has similar skills. It’s *also* his other abilities, that get lumped in as “racial features” when in fact many of them— for example the stone work skills— are actually results of cultural training and experience, which humans don’t (and can’t) receive. The same is true for elves, and halflings. If you’re playing a non-human character, then your should think of that character as *not being human.* Because it’s not. And that’s an opportunity for character direction and growth that is challenging and fun, in a way that the “short hairy guy who just does the same stuff” is not. There are other reasons as well, but it’s enough to say that Basic is my game, and despite the name, there’s nothing “basic” about how far it can go!
|
|
Narmer
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 21
|
Post by Narmer on Aug 12, 2020 12:40:49 GMT -6
I started with Holmes back in 1980, and migrated almost immediately to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, because “Advanced.” Around the time 2e started to rear its head, I was getting tired of the complexity of AD&D. I noticed the Mentzer Basic sets at a bookstore where I worked, and started using my employee discount to buy them. I fell in love with the simplicity and flexibility of the system, which to me offered more versatility and a better base to flex my own imagination than AD&D did. I wound up getting BECM (but not I... had no interest in running gods or playing gods), the RC and the entire Gazetteer run, including the Emperors boxed set, Top Ballista 8O , and the various Creature Crucibles. I picked up one Hollow World product, but that setting didn’t appeal to me. These days, the RC is my go to reference work. I have a lot of house rules, but what I like about the B/X/ECMI approach is that it so readily allows for these. The system is flexible enough and simple enough to allow for easy tweaking, while robust enough to not come crashing down when you do. There’s clarity when I need it, and openness when I don’t. You can’t get that with the modern games— they’re too rigidly designed and narrowly defined. I happen to be among those who have also embraced Race-as-Class as a thematic and logical advantage in the system. Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings are NOT just short humans with more hair— they are distinct *species* with their own definitive cultures, mental processes, points of view, and even gods. They don’t *fit* within the classes defined for humans; they are each “their own thing.” A dwarf’s class isn’t “fighter,” though he has similar skills. It’s *also* his other abilities, that get lumped in as “racial features” when in fact many of them— for example the stone work skills— are actually results of cultural training and experience, which humans don’t (and can’t) receive. The same is true for elves, and halflings. If you’re playing a non-human character, then your should think of that character as *not being human.* Because it’s not. And that’s an opportunity for character direction and growth that is challenging and fun, in a way that the “short hairy guy who just does the same stuff” is not.
There are other reasons as well, but it’s enough to say that Basic is my game, and despite the name, there’s nothing “basic” about how far it can go! I really like the way you explain Race-as-Class.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 12, 2020 13:36:34 GMT -6
One of my first characters was a fighter. I play-tested him by pitting him against Morgan Ironwolf. He got his butt handed to him in 2-3 rounds.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 12, 2020 14:42:36 GMT -6
I started with Holmes back in 1980, and migrated almost immediately to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, because “Advanced.” Around the time 2e started to rear its head, I was getting tired of the complexity of AD&D. I noticed the Mentzer Basic sets at a bookstore where I worked, and started using my employee discount to buy them. I fell in love with the simplicity and flexibility of the system, which to me offered more versatility and a better base to flex my own imagination than AD&D did. I wound up getting BECM (but not I... had no interest in running gods or playing gods), the RC and the entire Gazetteer run, including the Emperors boxed set, Top Ballista 8O , and the various Creature Crucibles. I picked up one Hollow World product, but that setting didn’t appeal to me. These days, the RC is my go to reference work. I have a lot of house rules, but what I like about the B/X/ECMI approach is that it so readily allows for these. The system is flexible enough and simple enough to allow for easy tweaking, while robust enough to not come crashing down when you do. There’s clarity when I need it, and openness when I don’t. You can’t get that with the modern games— they’re too rigidly designed and narrowly defined. I happen to be among those who have also embraced Race-as-Class as a thematic and logical advantage in the system. Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings are NOT just short humans with more hair— they are distinct *species* with their own definitive cultures, mental processes, points of view, and even gods. They don’t *fit* within the classes defined for humans; they are each “their own thing.” A dwarf’s class isn’t “fighter,” though he has similar skills. It’s *also* his other abilities, that get lumped in as “racial features” when in fact many of them— for example the stone work skills— are actually results of cultural training and experience, which humans don’t (and can’t) receive. The same is true for elves, and halflings. If you’re playing a non-human character, then your should think of that character as *not being human.* Because it’s not. And that’s an opportunity for character direction and growth that is challenging and fun, in a way that the “short hairy guy who just does the same stuff” is not.
There are other reasons as well, but it’s enough to say that Basic is my game, and despite the name, there’s nothing “basic” about how far it can go! I really like the way you explain Race-as-Class. Agreed.
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 347
|
Post by Parzival on Aug 12, 2020 15:20:39 GMT -6
Thanks to all who liked my Race-as-Class theory (despite the typos! 8-O).
I came up with it while prepping “background” information for novice players. In those, I expanded upon the concepts with descriptions of how dwarf, elf, and halfling cultures each view the world and approach interactions with humans, basing those ideas upon the generic high fantasy tropes of the three races. It surprised me somewhat as to how uniquely and believably it all worked, and how it fit the Race-as-Class concept of the core B/X/ECMI system. It was a fun exercise, and I’ve used it to guide my approach to the game ever since.
|
|
|
Post by spellslingsellsword on Aug 16, 2020 10:37:15 GMT -6
I went to Toys-R-Us and bought a copy of the Mentzer Basic & Expert sets and a copy of the original Forgotten Realms campaign boxed set. Those three boxed sets were my introduction to the world of Dungeons & Dragons and here I am all these years later still involved in gaming.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 16, 2020 13:44:49 GMT -6
I went to Toys-R-Us and bought a copy of the Mentzer Basic & Expert sets and a copy of the original Forgotten Realms campaign boxed set. Those three boxed sets were my introduction to the world of Dungeons & Dragons and here I am all these years later still involved in gaming. Cool! I've seen an adaptation of FR to the Classic rules, but I don't remember how it went, aside from a bard class being created. Was that your work?
|
|
|
Post by spellslingsellsword on Aug 18, 2020 17:03:17 GMT -6
I went to Toys-R-Us and bought a copy of the Mentzer Basic & Expert sets and a copy of the original Forgotten Realms campaign boxed set. Those three boxed sets were my introduction to the world of Dungeons & Dragons and here I am all these years later still involved in gaming. Cool! I've seen an adaptation of FR to the Classic rules, but I don't remember how it went, aside from a bard class being created. Was that your work? Nope, that one wasn't mine.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Aug 29, 2020 14:59:45 GMT -6
I’ve told this before, but one more time for the cheap seats. Though I was well aware of the game and almost had an idea of how it may work due to the Endless Quest books and other stuff (such as one of my older sisters kinda getting the idea from the ad for the game at the back of one of said books) as early as about 1984, I first played the game in the fall of 1986 at age 12 as I began 7th grade.
A friend had older brothers who played and had introduced him prior. He loaned me his coverless Holmes rule book and I wondered over it excitedly that afternoon and evening, certainly ignoring or at least procrastinating homework. We began playing the very next day and a group of about six or seven of us played every day during lunch for most of that school year.
My folks were in the group of people who imagined it was the Devils game, so getting my own set wasn’t going to be a birthday or Christmas thing, ever. I had many photocopied pages of...so many different things cobbled together. I was able to acquire a copy of MERP 1st edition revised since it wasn’t D&D, but of course I wanted D&D. The Mentzer sets were on the shelf at the time and I wanted them so very badly.
One day talking to a friend at school I made mention of the game and he said he used to play but no longer did. I asked if he still had his books. He did. Did he want to sell or give them to me? He said he’d sell them to me for two bucks. Expecting to get the Mentzer sets from him, I was appreciative but disappointed when he brought me a set of battered B/X books. However it was perfect to be able to hide my D&D rules in plain site in a three-ring binder (after all...those are only for school, right?). Having everything I could ever need to plan, play, etc. was such a welcome thing. While I still pined for the (what I imagined to be) the “new and improved” rules, I began to fall in love with my copies of B/X. I tried to supplement them with a copy of the AD&D 1E PHB, but it was just so dense and overwhelming. Using bits and pieces here and there from Dragon magazine or whatever was easy, but implementing the verbose spells and such from AD&D was a non-starter for me.
I later acquired the Rules Cyclopedia when it was released and thought I’d found Heaven...but found a game just as dense and overwhelming as AD&D felt before and still. I defaulted to my beloved B/X. A buddy of mine, thinking it was the origin of the game, gifted me with a near mint Holmes set back in 1998 or so, and I was happy to see it again after so long. I fell in love with it as it’s own thing as well.
tl;dr - Started In 1986 in the Mentzer era wanting the Mentzer rules. First read old copy of Holmes, played with it being the DMs main reference. Later got old copies of B/X. Wanted BECMI. Got RC. Went back to B/X. Also Holmes. Still go back to both.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 29, 2020 18:56:44 GMT -6
He was brief and extremely effective when talking fiction/fluff/description- the opening bit of B2 "The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted...." And say the intro to Hommlett, are far better than reams of description in later products. That was his strong suit. Conveying imagery. But otherwise I think I'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think Gary could be brief, matter of fact, and effective when it came to rules in print-unless he was shutting something (or someone) down for whatever reason. At least not without somebody putting the screws to him. Even if we say OK- those were the first books of their kind and cutting him some slack. Looking at his later gamebook works- He didn't do a good job with Mythus. Great Gary prose, but a wreck of a rulebook. I'm guessing GDW went pretty easy on him for editing. Mythus PRIME, for "beginners"- Nope, not well written for beginners, at all. Lejendary Adventures- the original volumes from Hekaforge are wonderful and awful like Mythus and that's after some editing by Chris. The Trolls' Lejendary Adventures Essentials line is slightly better, but still not heavy handed enough. I'm guessing most folks didn't want to be heavy handed on him with editing for a variety of reasons- and certainly not during his time at TSR 1979-ish and beyond. Which brings me back to -Tom and Zeb/Steve were the perfect folks for producing a set of clear and concise rules based on the OD&D books for a generation of new people. Definitely not receptive to heavy editing while he ruled the roost at TSR. You can get a pretty good idea how he felt about editing from the consistently negative comments he had about Zeb's handling of Oriental Adventures whenever the topic came up on various Q&A sessions or interviews - and that wasn't even his own work, that was François Marcela-Froideval's writing that Zeb felt required heavy-handed editing in order to be playable and compatible with AD&D. Possibly some of Gary's harshness was due to resentment over Zeb remaining with TSR and eventually being tapped as lead designer for 2nd Edition, though he did always say he was unhappy with it even at the time of its release but simply couldn't delay its release for rewriting due to the company's financial situation. Regardless, based on his reaction to Marcela-Froideval's work being heavily edited, I get the feeling that any editor who didn't go easy on him would be out of a job (or in the case of the later works where he was working with an independent publisher, a demand for them to give him a different editor or he'd walk).
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Aug 29, 2020 22:06:29 GMT -6
“My Basic D&D” is 1. The 1978 Players Handbook — you know, the 8 pages at the end where he summarizes the rules which are gone into in greater depth in the DMG. It works for me just fine. Okay. So I just wanted to say “thanks” for this...and this may sound stupid or very surprising, but...somehow, I’ve never really paid too much attention, or even attention to this to realize it is quite as you stated. Of course, I’m not and never have been an AD&D sort, but sheesh, I’ve had a copy or copies of the PHB since I was a kid in the mid 80s. Never read all of it through and through...but ya know how it is...one would imagine, after many decades I would have, well, realized just what this section really is and what it holds. I appreciate you pointing out this otherwise obvious bit. Heck, those pages would make a nice lil addendum to a Holmes game.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 31, 2020 19:13:13 GMT -6
Okay. So I just wanted to say “thanks” for this...and this may sound stupid or very surprising, but...somehow, I’ve never really paid too much attention, or even attention to this to realize it is quite as you stated. Of course, I’m not and never have been an AD&D sort, but sheesh, I’ve had a copy or copies of the PHB since I was a kid in the mid 80s. Never read all of it through and through...but ya know how it is...one would imagine, after many decades I would have, well, realized just what this section really is and what it holds. I appreciate you pointing out this otherwise obvious bit. Heck, those pages would make a nice lil addendum to a Holmes game. You’re welcome! It is always neat to find new nuggets. For many years I carried a Holmes box around with me, containing the Holmes rules, B2, an AD&D DM Screen, and a paperback AD&D PHB (a U.K. edition), and character sheets. A pretty complete set for a pickup game! You may also enjoy my thread, The Lost Edition.
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 1, 2020 15:32:50 GMT -6
1. The 1978 Players Handbook — you know, the 8 pages at the end where he summarizes the rules which are gone into in greater depth in the DMG. It works for me just fine. Do you mean the Appendix, or before that?
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 347
|
Post by Parzival on Sept 1, 2020 16:26:12 GMT -6
1. The 1978 Players Handbook — you know, the 8 pages at the end where he summarizes the rules which are gone into in greater depth in the DMG. It works for me just fine. Do you mean the Appendix, or before that? I’m pretty sure he means the section before the appendices and charts. It’s the section about adventuring, beginning after the spell lists, and continuing with the details about lighting, exploring, encounters, combat, etc.. Some of it is rules, some of it is advice.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 1, 2020 16:50:33 GMT -6
Yes, that's right.
|
|
|
Post by ahabicher on Oct 23, 2021 8:23:15 GMT -6
I have played all kinds of systems over the years, starting with KULT, GURPS, and Cyberpunk 2020, then Risus, FATE, WoD, Wushu, and the Dark Eye and Midgard. But no D&D for a really long time. Dungeons & Dragons I started with DnD 5e in 2017, when the group wanted to go a bit "classic" after playing the Gumshoe system.
5e kind of did not sit well with me. But it got me interested in where things began and asked about ODnD. It took me a while to find people who knew about that, but there were plenty who knew about B/X, and so my first foray into older versions was a B/X adventure. I continued to look for Original DnD and finally found it, too, and I tried ADnD 1e, BECMI and Holmes too, and I also started to play Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which is based very strongly on B/X, just with a beefed-up fighter, d6-skills for the thief, and some meddling with the spells. So while most people around me still like 5e best, and many games I am offered are 5e, my favourites are B/X and ODnD, and it is really not easy to decide between them. They both have their slightly different strengths.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 170
|
Post by aramis on Oct 23, 2021 23:19:41 GMT -6
I started with Outdoor Survival... started on it by my psychologist.
I was then introduced to 1776, then Tactics II...
plus somewhere in there Risk, Stratego, the D&D electronic labyrinth (got to play once)... I'd looked through Holmes Basic, with no comprehension of it other than a combat game.
I then pulled a Ken... I created a dungeon generation/exploration game of my own, inspired by Holmes. There was no RP, only warriors and wizards... Warriors rolled 1d6 for 5+ in melee, 6+ ranged. Wizards flipped those. Monsters generally were 5+ in melee.
Then, finally, I got a chance to play... AD&D 1E. Just before or as Moldvay Basic released. I read what I could... and when Aaron and I pooled our cash, I went to buy us dice and a basic set... but I didn't have enough for the basic set... but did have enough for a dice set and the basic book. So I got those. Aaron's mom found out, and told me he wasn't allowed to have it at the house, so it had to stay at mine, except when we were playing it.
I still have a battered copy, but I have doubts it's the one I bought back then. I also have a matching Cook expert.
I have fond memories of introducing friends to RPGs with Basic.
But my D&D Basic preference is actually the Cyclopedia, but introducing players using Denning's Basic Set. (The Big Black Box).
Cyclopedia, plus all the Gazetteers I've collected, plus all four PC sourcebooks...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2021 6:39:42 GMT -6
I started with Outdoor Survival...
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 24, 2021 8:38:09 GMT -6
I started with Outdoor Survival...
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 170
|
Post by aramis on Oct 27, 2021 2:50:40 GMT -6
I started with Outdoor Survival... The only AD&D PHB class I've never played. I've done clerics, druids, fighters, mages, thieves, assassins, even the bard... and the Cavalier, Barbarian, Thief-acrobat, and a wild mage, too... but never an AD&D ranger. Irony, no? (Haven't played one in AD&D2E, nor D&D 3.x, 4.x, nor 5e.)
|
|